More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 07:38 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 06:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-02-2017 11:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You CLAIM it's an eye-witness account.

No, it's not a claim, it's fact. It is an eye-witness/first hand account, by it's very nature. You're the one claiming it's not to be trusted, fabricated, etc... not me.


Quote:Provide the scientific EVIDENCE (YOUR stated standard) for it. It's an unsupported assertion. You're supposed to provide scientific evidence that it happened and is true. Very simple. Stop waffling widdle Tomato, you cwafty wabbit with the big wabbit hole.

No scientific evidence is your standard, not mine. There is no scientific evidence for Caesar or Jesus, just historical evidence.

More dishonesty, obfuscation, and distortion by a theist. Drinking Beverage Color me surprised


What is Paul's "firsthand account" an account of? Because YOU claim it is a reliable firsthand account that corroborates Jesus' existence, except that doesn't logically follow from the story. That is an ASSUMPTION you make without evidence. Paul allegedly met people alleging to be Jesus' brother and disciples. So, Paul's firsthand account is a firsthand account of meeting people who made claims about knowing Jesus, but don't have any evidential support for their claims. Paul believed them, so while Paul believed he met Jesus' brother and disciples, and you believe him too, that is in no way a firsthand or eye witness account of Jesus. It is (at best) a secondhand account that has no corroborating evidence. Is that your "scientific evidence" of Jesus? A secondhand account from a person who had a vested interest in Jesus being real and who appears to have suffered from delusions and/or hallucinations? Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
"More dishonesty, obfuscation, and distortion by a theist. Color me surprised."


Yup and he's scary good at it too, for novices like me its rather a bind, I find myself getting tied up in knots wondering if its me being thick and not understanding and having to wait and see what other more experienced debaters / members have to say, once the path has been illuminated I can then rest easy knowing I'm not losing my marbles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
21-02-2017, 08:01 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 08:07 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 07:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More dishonesty, obfuscation, and distortion by a theist. Drinking Beverage Color me surprised


What is Paul's "firsthand account" an account of? Because YOU claim it is a reliable firsthand account that corroborates Jesus' existence, except that doesn't logically follow from the story. That is an ASSUMPTION you make without evidence. Paul allegedly met people alleging to be Jesus' brother and disciples. So, Paul's firsthand account is a firsthand account of meeting people who made claims about knowing Jesus, but don't have any evidential support for their claims. Paul believed them, so while Paul believed he met Jesus' brother and disciples, and you believe him too, that is in no way a firsthand or eye witness account of Jesus. It is (at best) a secondhand account that has no corroborating evidence. Is that your "scientific evidence" of Jesus? A secondhand account from a person who had a vested interest in Jesus being real and who appears to have suffered from delusions and/or hallucinations? Laugh out load

No, I claimed it's a firsthand, eyewitness account. You're the one questioning it's reliability not me. Paul writings are historical evidence. Just like Caeser Commentaries on the Gaelic War are historical evidence, or the writings of Josephus is historical evidence of events that took place during that period, in Roman-Palestine. In fact James being Jesus's brother, is collaborated not only in other NT writings, but even by Josephus himself, when writing of James' death.

If we were to use your stupendous logic here, and applied it to Caeser, then than Commentries on the Gaelic war were allegedly written by Caeser, and claims to be a first-hand account of what happened during Gaelic War, from the alleged perspective of Caeser. Or we can extend to any other individuals writing about Caeser, that they were just alleged claims, and not evidence.

Then when we can start to form a bunch of silly conspiracies, about a Caeser myth, and conspiracy to turn it into history.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 10:53 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
13 pages over the historicity of Caesar? -> Welcome to my ever growing ignore list, Tomasia Thumbsup

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
21-02-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 07:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 06:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, it's not a claim, it's fact. It is an eye-witness/first hand account, by it's very nature. You're the one claiming it's not to be trusted, fabricated, etc... not me.



No scientific evidence is your standard, not mine. There is no scientific evidence for Caesar or Jesus, just historical evidence.

More dishonesty, obfuscation, and distortion by a theist. Drinking Beverage Color me surprised


What is Paul's "firsthand account" an account of? Because YOU claim it is a reliable firsthand account that corroborates Jesus' existence, except that doesn't logically follow from the story. That is an ASSUMPTION you make without evidence. Paul allegedly met people alleging to be Jesus' brother and disciples. So, Paul's firsthand account is a firsthand account of meeting people who made claims about knowing Jesus, but don't have any evidential support for their claims. Paul believed them, so while Paul believed he met Jesus' brother and disciples, and you believe him too, that is in no way a firsthand or eye witness account of Jesus. It is (at best) a secondhand account that has no corroborating evidence. Is that your "scientific evidence" of Jesus? A secondhand account from a person who had a vested interest in Jesus being real and who appears to have suffered from delusions and/or hallucinations? Laugh out load

Also, the only time Paul refers to Jesus the man is in established forgeries.

Paul was much more likely referring to a celestial Jesus.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
21-02-2017, 08:26 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:16 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Also, the only time Paul refers to Jesus the man is in established forgeries.

Paul was much more likely referring to a celestial Jesus.

My man, that's exactly my theory regarding Caeser, that he was celestial figure, of an earlier empire cult, that was later rendered as an actual historical ruler. In fact in was this celestial empire cult, that eventually diverged into the celestial Jesus cult, that was later treated as a historical figure.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...or the writings of Josephus is historical evidence of events that took place during that period, in Roman-Palestine. In fact James being Jesus's brother, is collaborated not only in other NT writings, but even by Josephus himself, when writing of James' death.

Just so you know (perhaps you didn't - no shame in that) Josephus' writings, specifically the Testimonium Flavianum, are now widely accepted to have been at least partially forged and modified to fit certain historical, religious and economic narratives.

In short, it cannot be trusted.

More here (it's long but worth the time): Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

Tl, dr:
Quote:While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:16 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Also, the only time Paul refers to Jesus the man is in established forgeries.

No dude, that just what some tinfoil hat atheists told you.

Paul indicates, Jesus was a human being, in a variety of passages in his authentic writings as well

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:37 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:31 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Just so you know (perhaps you didn't - no shame in that) Josephus' writings, specifically the Testimonium Flavianum, are now widely accepted to have been at least partially forged and modified to fit certain historical, religious and economic narratives.

In short, it cannot be trusted.

More here (it's long but worth the time): Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

It seems here that many atheists are not aware that Josephus mentions Jesus in two separate areas. One the disputed Testimonium passage you mentioned, and the other in an undisputed portion regarding James' death. This is the passage I'm referring to, not the Flavianum one.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 08:16 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Also, the only time Paul refers to Jesus the man is in established forgeries.

Paul was much more likely referring to a celestial Jesus.

My man, that's exactly my theory regarding Caeser, that he was celestial figure, of an earlier empire cult, that was later rendered as an actual historical ruler. In fact in was this celestial empire cult, that eventually diverged into the celestial Jesus cult, that was later treated as a historical figure.

Works for me. I'm totally with you on this part of your argument... though I don't think it has been established that it's the case he was fabricated, either. I feel roughly the same way about the Jesus Myth idea. I think it's most likely he was real, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there's more than a little bit of "fudging" going on in constructing the legend we inherited about this alleged person.

Maybe there was no historical Caesar, and he was a constructed god-figure used for socio-political purposes "that was later rendered as an actual historical ruler". It strikes me as odd, given the number of immediate contemporaries (friends and enemies alike) who refer to him as if he is a real general, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that he's a fabrication.

Next time someone comes up and tells me that I must live my life according to the teachings of Caesar, or tries to change my laws to match those of the ancient Roman Empire, or discriminates against me because I am not a follower of the Roman God-Emperor cult, then I will certainly point out to them that their evidence for this person being real is not sufficient for them to impose that concept onto my society... or to bother me about it at all.

Other than that, I just don't give a serious fuck. And neither should you. Believe only so far as the evidence supports, and doubt to the fullest degree permitted by the strength (or weakness) of the evidence.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: