Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Jesus myth
As an anger management tactic, I'm going to step away from this conversation. I would appreciate hearing from any dispassionate observers on whether I am justified in my frustration, overreacting or both. Feel free to send me a private message. Thanks all. See you soon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:15 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  You are ducking nitpicking and it is beneath both you and this discussion. You know damn well what I meant and, further, you know damn well I have been right all along. I have NOT been talking about Tacitus' perspective; YOU have, and you have done so in a way that is both deceptive and counterproductive to a civil conversation. You knew I was right, but you dragged the argument out anyway.

Not nit-picking. When you speak of what Tacitus used, then you are speaking from his perspective.

Full-stop.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Quote:Hence, the mere existence of the text is evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Holy shit. Earlier today he's pointing out that the text proves nothing. Now it's self-evident proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

I've seen people break multiple limbs making shorter leaps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
25-01-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Free, just stop. You are free to present your argument, and you are free to distort mine. But when you distort mine, I'm going to say you're full of shit.

You're full of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:23 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  
Quote:Hence, the mere existence of the text is evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Holy shit. Earlier today he's pointing out that the text proves nothing. Now it's self-evident proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

I've seen people break multiple limbs making shorter leaps.

Misquote much?

How desperate are you?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:17 PM)Free Wrote:  That was not my point.

All I was saying was the mere existence of the Tacitus text is in itself self evident as evidence of the Tacitus text.

Self-evident: Requiring no proof or explanation.

Tacitus' text exists, and requires no proof or explanation to prove its existence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
Well, no, that's not all you were saying. Of course, nobody here is disputing that the text itself, i.e. the words written on the manuscripts, exists. What is being disputed is whether or not these words are evidence of the existence of Jesus.

You have made that very claim, hence why I responded the way I did.

(25-01-2014 08:22 AM)Free Wrote:  The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is in fact evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and there is not one single argument posted here that can dispute that fact for the simple reason that it is self-evident.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Jesus myth
I have not misquoted you and I resent the accusation, Free.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 10:58 AM)Free Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 10:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  You continue to miss the point and have compounded it with a fallacy.

You think something is self-evident while someone else does not. You declaring it as self-evident does not make it self-evident. It may or may not be, but your declaration adds nothing to its truth value.

Your discussion above is fallacious because you assume the truth of what you are setting out to demonstrate.

You are sitting there writing to me and should I then think that your existence is somehow not self-evident?

Using your fallacious reasoning, nothing can exist.

Big Grin

You are hopelessly misunderstanding this. It is not about what is or is not self-evident. It is about you not understanding English.
You misconstrued the statement "Declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so" as equivalent to "Declaring something self-evident makes it not so."

I give up. Someone else can try.

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
25-01-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 01:49 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:26 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 01:17 PM)Free Wrote:  That was not my point.

All I was saying was the mere existence of the Tacitus text is in itself self evident as evidence of the Tacitus text.

Self-evident: Requiring no proof or explanation.

Tacitus' text exists, and requires no proof or explanation to prove its existence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
Well, no, that's not all you were saying. Of course, nobody here is disputing that the text itself, i.e. the words written on the manuscripts, exists. What is being disputed is whether or not these words are evidence of the existence of Jesus.

You have made that very claim, hence why I responded the way I did.

(25-01-2014 08:22 AM)Free Wrote:  The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is in fact evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and there is not one single argument posted here that can dispute that fact for the simple reason that it is self-evident.

I understand your understanding, and see how you can understand it that way. However, my intended meaning was "The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is ... self evident."

The subject of the post was "the mere existence."

But hey, I can concede to your point and be careful in the future to be more clear.

But you also need to understand that the quote of me you are talking about is not the quote in question. Click the link below and follow through.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid476282

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 01:56 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand your understanding, and see how you can understand it that way. However, my intended meaning was "The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is ... self evident."

The subject of the post was "the mere existence."

But hey, I can concede to your point and be careful in the future to be more clear.
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Given the ambiguous nature of your statement, I thought that the phrase "it is self-evident" was referring to the existence of Jesus, not the existence of the manuscripts that mention him.

Thanks for the clarification. Smile

Edit:

(25-01-2014 01:45 PM)Free Wrote:  But you also need to understand that the quote of me you are talking about is not the quote in question. Click the link below and follow through.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid476282
I'm still not sure if I understand your position correctly.

Are you arguing
a.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because it is self-evident that this statement is true or
b.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because Tacitus is considered to be credible historian, because the writings were not an interpolation, etc.?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: