Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 10:12 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 09:44 PM)Free Wrote:  You did not answer my question.

I answered your question, than I asked another question to you. Why would you not think an all powerful, all knowing and everywhere at once demi-god would not let himself be known to all?

Dude, the question I asked assumed you would understand that I was speaking from a position of historicity as opposed to myth.

The question still remains unanswered.

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
15-11-2014, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 09:28 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one "bowed out" of anything. You totally FAILED to support your claims, and in fact you were shown to be lying.

Still waiting for other examples and scholarly support for your CLAIM that the gospels were "biographies". You are delusional. Thanks for again demonstrating that.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Yes, you have this one question i never bothered responding to. But here:

Quote:“In recent years, many genres have been proposed for the Gospels, but increasingly they have been again seen as biography. The work of Charles Talbert and David Aune has contributed greatly to this development, while my own work has attempted to give a detailed argument combining literary theory and classical studies with Gospel scholarship"
Quote:"Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College, London in his definitive book, What Are The Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-Roman Biography, gives seventeen characteristics of ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. We will focus on six of them for the sake of brevity.4

["The gospels have the same characteristics as ancient Graeco-Roman biography. The Greek word “bios,” “life,” is the origin of the English word “biography.” The plural of “bios” is “bioi.” The genre of ancient Graeco-Roman biographies was known as “bioi” or “lives.”"

Quote:"Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary writes,
“Through most of history, readers understood the Gospels as biographies, but after 1915 scholars tried to find some other classification for them, mainly because these scholars confused ancient and modern biography and noticed that the Gospels differed from the latter. The current trend, however, is again to recognize the Gospels as ancient biographies.”1"

http://jesusevidences.com/ntgospelsbiographies.php

There you go.

Quote:There are mentions of Pilate by NON-BELIEVERS, (unlike your Jebus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

If you followed along I already mentioned the sources we have for Pilate, you should have took the time to follow along.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid686063
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  OK so Jesus existed. So what?

Nothing, he existed, that's it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 09:57 AM by StorMFront.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:20 AM)Free Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 10:12 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  I answered your question, than I asked another question to you. Why would you not think an all powerful, all knowing and everywhere at once demi-god would not let himself be known to all?

Dude, the question I asked assumed you would understand that I was speaking from a position of historicity as opposed to myth.

The question still remains unanswered.

Must of missed this part of my latter comment?

'If you're simply arguing for a historical Jesus, than were done here. As I could careless if a man lived who inspired a legend existed. He would be no more relevant than any other legendary figure if that is the case. However there is no evidence to even support this, just plausibility.'

Last I checked within the historical method, one must have contemporary evidences to 'confirm' a person, place, thing or event within history. The fact is, Jesus has none. Therefore he remains only a plausible historical figure within history - like that of Achilles.

Perhaps men did live who inspired both of their respected legends. However there is simply no evidence to suggest that this is the case. So, we are simply stuck with never knowing for certain that he existed, unless further evidences is 'dug up'.

Buddy brought up Paul meeting 'alleged' eyewitnesses. However this is simply hearsay and nothing more.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 09:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  OK so Jesus existed. So what?

Nothing, he existed, that's it.

Woohoo. Party on. Citation for your claim?

PS: You're sure you don't wanna sneak in a lil' "he existed and died for YOUR sins and HOLY JESUS LOVES YOU" etc?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 09:34 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:28 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 09:20 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude, the question I asked assumed you would understand that I was speaking from a position of historicity as opposed to myth.

The question still remains unanswered.

Must of missed this part of my latter comment?

'If you're simply arguing for a historical Jesus, than were done here. As I could careless if a man lived who inspired a legend existed. He would be no more relevant than any other legendary figure if that is the case. However there is no evidence to even support this, just plausibility.'

Last I checked within the historical method, one must have contemporary evidences to 'confirm' a person, place, thing or event within history. The fact is, Jesus has none. Therefore he remains only a plausible historical figure within history - like that of Achilles.

Perhaps a man did live who inspired both of their respected legends. However there is simply no evidence to suggest that this is the case. So, we are simply stuck with never knowing for certain that he existed, unless further evidences is 'dug up'.

Buddy brought up Paul meeting 'alleged' eyewitnesses. However this is simply hearsay and nothing more.

Oh I see! So you come here to this forum with all your bluster and lack of education and expect some of the "very educated" people here to automatically respect and accept your position as if it is some kind of indisputable truth?

lol

Just one word for you dude.

Fuck off.

Tongue

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
15-11-2014, 09:37 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Just one word for you dude.

Fuck off.

Tongue

That's two words.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-11-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Just one word for you dude.

Fuck off.

Tongue

That's two words.

Fuckoff

Respect your elders!

Weeping

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
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
15-11-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 09:28 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  Must of missed this part of my latter comment?

'If you're simply arguing for a historical Jesus, than were done here. As I could careless if a man lived who inspired a legend existed. He would be no more relevant than any other legendary figure if that is the case. However there is no evidence to even support this, just plausibility.'

Last I checked within the historical method, one must have contemporary evidences to 'confirm' a person, place, thing or event within history. The fact is, Jesus has none. Therefore he remains only a plausible historical figure within history - like that of Achilles.

Perhaps a man did live who inspired both of their respected legends. However there is simply no evidence to suggest that this is the case. So, we are simply stuck with never knowing for certain that he existed, unless further evidences is 'dug up'.

Buddy brought up Paul meeting 'alleged' eyewitnesses. However this is simply hearsay and nothing more.

Oh I see! So you come here to this forum with all your bluster and lack of education and expect some of the "very educated" people here to automatically respect and accept your position as if it is some kind of indisputable truth?

lol

Just one word for you dude.

Fuck off.

Tongue


Wow, talk about being a douchebag. Where as now you're a self professed 'educated' person. Who resorts to insults and ad hominems? Where I gave no such reason for you to be a dick to begin with? Shaking my head man.....pathetic.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like StorMFront's post
15-11-2014, 09:41 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 09:52 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, you have this one question i never bothered responding to. But here:

Quote:“In recent years, many genres have been proposed for the Gospels, but increasingly they have been again seen as biography. The work of Charles Talbert and David Aune has contributed greatly to this development, while my own work has attempted to give a detailed argument combining literary theory and classical studies with Gospel scholarship"
Quote:"Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College, London in his definitive book, What Are The Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-Roman Biography, gives seventeen characteristics of ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. We will focus on six of them for the sake of brevity.4

["The gospels have the same characteristics as ancient Graeco-Roman biography. The Greek word “bios,” “life,” is the origin of the English word “biography.” The plural of “bios” is “bioi.” The genre of ancient Graeco-Roman biographies was known as “bioi” or “lives.”"

Quote:"Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary writes,
“Through most of history, readers understood the Gospels as biographies, but after 1915 scholars tried to find some other classification for them, mainly because these scholars confused ancient and modern biography and noticed that the Gospels differed from the latter. The current trend, however, is again to recognize the Gospels as ancient biographies.”1"

So you have MORE believers, and no SECULAR historians who counter what I provided. Someone who claimed I said Jesus never existed, when in fact I never said that shouldn't be talking about "following along", and dear, "have took" is more proof you have no education in anything. It's "should have taken". "Have took" is improper English.

(15-11-2014 09:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  OK so Jesus existed. So what?

Nothing, he existed, that's it.

So you CLAIM. Saying he did, does not make it so. You have provided not a shred of evidence he did. There is none. The fact that his preaching is more in line with the interests and preaching of the Rabbis from about 50-100 years later could lead one to think he was an invention. AND you answered none of the other questions, and refuted NONE of the scholars I provided. IF indeed they are similar to other Greek and Roman "biographies", (and I do not grant that, as the gospels were proclamations of FAITH written for liturgical celebrations) then the accurate historicity of other Greek and Roman "biographies would have to be established BEFORE the claim would hold any water. You have not done that. You have not provided even ONE example why we should take that CLAIM seriously. Your two sources are OCCUPATIONALLY OBLIGATED, (ie they have an inherent conflict of interest) to tow the party line.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: