More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 08:54 AM by SYZ.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(20-02-2017 08:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No I'm just saying there's no evidence that Caesar existed. That I have no choice, but to except the default position, and that is to lack a belief.

So you're using the (alleged) fact that there's no evidence of Caesar's existence to propose that the same thing applies also to the man called Jesus? And because of that, Jesus may well have existed. Seriously?

Presumably then, because you have no choice, you must also accept the default position that Jesus did not exist?

Or are you just confused? Huh

(20-02-2017 08:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No scientific evidence is your standard, not mine. There is no scientific evidence for Caesar or Jesus, just historical evidence.

Nope; empirical scientific evidence is ultimately the benchmark. "Historical evidence" tells us that someone the Vikings called Thor produced thunder and lightning when he was fighting with the gods, and protecting humans. Scientific evidence tells us this was bullshit.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
21-02-2017, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 09:16 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

"No, I claimed it's a firsthand, eyewitness account."

It is a firsthand account of Paul meeting people making claims to be firsthand eye witnesses. That it is true is an assumption you make (true in that it actually happened to Paul and true that the people he met were telling him something true/factually accurate). Paul didn't meet Jesus, ever. Therefore, Paul CAN'T be an eye witness to Jesus nor can he have a firsthand account. You're lying, point blank.

"You're the one questioning it's reliability not me."

You clearly don't get this. I don't really care if what Paul wrote is accurate with respect to what people told him, it might be. He might have written down, accurately, what someone claimed to him, but that does NOT mean that what they told him was true or unbiased or reliable. Accurately recording a lie, doesn't make the lie true. Which is why people ask for any evidence to substantiate the claims of Paul, so any contemporary evidence or accounts of Jesus, of which there are none. You keep coming back to Paul's claims and the claims Paul wrote down from other people, but those are CLAIMS with no corroborating evidence.

"Paul writings are historical evidence. "

Historical evidence of Paul being real, but not that what he wrote is true. I believe Paul was real and hell, I believe he believed what he was writing was true, but that doesn't make it so.

"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. "

And yet again you ignore that we don't have anything from James. We have Paul claiming to have met James. Maybe he met James, or maybe he met someone pretending to be James, or maybe Paul made it all up, or maybe Paul hallucinated it. With no corroborating evidence, it is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion. So instead, you pick the conclusion that best fits your preconceived beliefs and ignore the paucity of corroborating evidence and contemporary accounts.

"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. "

Someone doesn't know how history works. Once again, it isn't a matter of taking a singular story or piece of evidence at face value, it is also taking other evidence into account to corroborate and substantiate the claims made in an historical text.

So, let's use a real simple example for you since you seem to get lost in even basic stuff. If a singular source were to make a fantastic claim about an event occurring (something like say...Mark 27:52), that is a historical document showing what someone may have believed occurred. So, do any other people write about the same event around the same time? Is there any archaeological evidence to substantiate the claims?

For Jesus, the answer to both of those questions is "no." For Caesar the answer to both of those questions is "yes."

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

You have already constructed those straw men.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
21-02-2017, 09:45 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Paul writings are historical evidence. "

Historical evidence of Paul being real, but not that what he wrote is true. I believe Paul was real and hell, I believe he believed what he was writing was true, but that doesn't make it so.

No moron, it's also historical evidence, that he met Jesus disciples and brother. It's historical evidence that Jesus had disciples and a brother as well. Why is it evidence? because it's logical supports that conclusion.

You clearly don't know how history works, or evidence. Just like Caeser writings are historical evidence of what happened at the Gaelic Wars, or Josephus writings are evidence for what happened in 1st Century Palestine.

The funny thing, about the scatterbrained logic of atheists on this forum, is that you on one hand claim the writings are evidence that Paul was a real person, while your peers like Bucky like to claim the exact opposite, that we don't have any evidence that even Paul existed, and that his own writings are not evidence for his existence.

But continue on, my tin-foil hat wearing friend.


Quote:And yet again you ignore that we don't have anything from James. We have Paul claiming to have met James. Maybe he met James, or maybe he met someone pretending to be James, or maybe Paul made it all up, or maybe Paul hallucinated it. With no corroborating evidence, it is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion. So instead, you pick the conclusion that best fits your preconceived beliefs and ignore the paucity of corroborating evidence and contemporary accounts.

And you don't get it. Jesus having a brother named James, is collaborated by Paul, the NT writings, as well as Josephus himself. So yes, any moron can logically conclude that Jesus did in fact have and actual brother named James, and that only historical people have actual brothers.

Quote:Someone doesn't know how history works.

Says, the guy who sounds more ridicolous when talking about history, than creationist do when talking about evolution.


Quote:So, let's use a real simple example for you since you seem to get lost in even basic stuff. If a singular source were to make a fantastic claim about an event occurring (something like say...Mark 27:52), that is a historical document showing what someone may have believed occurred. So, do any other people write about the same event around the same time? Is there any archaeological evidence to substantiate the claims?

Only an idiot would expect to find archaeological evidence that Jesus and James were brothers, or of Caesar's mother and siblings.

Quote:You have already constructed those straw men.

No, you're the one erecting straw men, I just return and repeat my same basic point, and unless I'm strawmaning myself, then it doesn't apply.

"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, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 09:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is a firsthand account of Paul meeting people making claims to be firsthand eye witnesses. That it is true is an assumption you make (true in that it actually happened to Paul and true that the people he met were telling him something true/factually accurate). Paul didn't meet Jesus, ever. Therefore, Paul CAN'T be an eye witness to Jesus nor can he have a firsthand account. You're lying, point blank.

What's ridiculous about the claiming non-sense, is that in can be applied to pretty much everything. A scientific study, is a claimed account, of what some people claim to have done and claimed to have observed in a laboratory. The earth is round, is claim made by others based on their claimed observation, and claimed calculations.

Holocaust survivors, are people claiming to have been there, and claiming to have witnessed the actions they observed, etc.....

And also quit with the strawman, I never claimed Paul's writing are an eye-witness account of meeting the historical Jesus. It is an eye-witness account of meeting his disciples and brothers. I'm sure you knew that, it wasn't an honest mistake, but more of your lying for atheism/

"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, 09:58 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Paul writings are historical evidence. "

Historical evidence of Paul being real, but not that what he wrote is true. I believe Paul was real and hell, I believe he believed what he was writing was true, but that doesn't make it so.

No moron, it's also historical evidence, that he met Jesus disciples and brother. It's historical evidence that Jesus had disciples and a brother as well. Why is it evidence? because it's logical supports that conclusion.

You clearly don't know how history works, or evidence. Just like Caeser writings are historical evidence of what happened at the Gaelic Wars, or Josephus writings are evidence for what happened in 1st Century Palestine.

The funny thing, about the scatterbrained logic of atheists on this forum, is that you on one hand claim the writings are evidence that Paul was a real person, while your peers like Bucky like to claim the exact opposite, that we don't have any evidence that even Paul existed, and that his own writings are not evidence for his existence.

But continue on, my tin-foil hat wearing friend.


Quote:And yet again you ignore that we don't have anything from James. We have Paul claiming to have met James. Maybe he met James, or maybe he met someone pretending to be James, or maybe Paul made it all up, or maybe Paul hallucinated it. With no corroborating evidence, it is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion. So instead, you pick the conclusion that best fits your preconceived beliefs and ignore the paucity of corroborating evidence and contemporary accounts.

And you don't get it. Jesus having a brother named James, is collaborated by Paul, the NT writings, as well as Josephus himself. So yes, any moron can logically conclude that Jesus did in fact have and actual brother named James, and that only historical people have actual brothers.

Quote:Someone doesn't know how history works.

Says, the guy who sounds more ridicolous when talking about history, than creationist do when talking about evolution.


Quote:So, let's use a real simple example for you since you seem to get lost in even basic stuff. If a singular source were to make a fantastic claim about an event occurring (something like say...Mark 27:52), that is a historical document showing what someone may have believed occurred. So, do any other people write about the same event around the same time? Is there any archaeological evidence to substantiate the claims?

Only an idiot would expect to find archaeological evidence that Jesus and James were brothers, or of Caesar's mother and siblings.

Quote:You have already constructed those straw men.

No, you're the one erecting straw men, I just return and repeat my same basic point, and unless I'm strawmaning myself, then it doesn't apply.

"No moron, it's also historical evidence, that he met Jesus disciples and brother. It's historical evidence that Jesus had disciples and a brother as well. Why is it evidence? because it's logical supports that conclusion.

You clearly don't know how history works, or evidence. Just like Caeser writings are historical evidence of what happened at the Gaelic Wars, or Josephus writings are evidence for what happened in 1st Century Palestine. "


You make it clear that you don't read replies to you when you write such drivel, also in my previous post: "And yet again you ignore that we don't have anything from James. We have Paul claiming to have met James. Maybe he met James, or maybe he met someone pretending to be James, or maybe Paul made it all up, or maybe Paul hallucinated it. With no corroborating evidence, it is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion. So instead, you pick the conclusion that best fits your preconceived beliefs and ignore the paucity of corroborating evidence and contemporary accounts."
And
"So, let's use a real simple example for you since you seem to get lost in even basic stuff. If a singular source were to make a fantastic claim about an event occurring (something like say...Mark 27:52), that is a historical document showing what someone may have believed occurred. So, do any other people write about the same event around the same time? Is there any archaeological evidence to substantiate the claims?

For Jesus, the answer to both of those questions is "no." For Caesar the answer to both of those questions is 'yes.'"

"The funny thing, about the scatterbrained logic of atheists on this forum, is that you on one hand claim the writings are evidence that Paul was a real person, while your peers like Bucky like to claim the exact opposite, that we don't have any evidence that even Paul existed, and that his own writings are not evidence for his existence. "

I'll let other people defend their own claims. But (yet again) you presume to know what we are all apparently thinking. There are writings from Paul, which at least substantiate his existence. But his writings are not evidence that what he wrote is externally true. Once again, Paul didn't meet Jesus or see Jesus do anything. Paul wrote about a Jesus, but that only means (at best) that Paul believed he was real.

"And you don't get it. Jesus having a brother named James, is collaborated by Paul, the NT writings, as well as Josephus himself. So yes, any moron can logically conclude that Jesus did in fact have and actual brother named James, and that only historical people have actual brothers. "

Because the only possible conclusion is that the person claiming to be "James, brother of Jesus" was real and telling Paul the truth? It is literally impossible for Paul to have imagined it, or lied about it, or hallucinated it, or that the person making the claims to him imagined it, or lied about it, or hallucinated it? Seeing as how there is no evidence to corroborate the claims that the person talking to Paul was in fact Jesus' brother, all you have is an assumption. Not evidence (historical or otherwise).

"Says, the guy who sounds more ridicolous when talking about history, than creationist do when talking about evolution. "

Pathetic attempt at insult is pathetic.

"Only an idiot would expect to find archaeological evidence that Jesus and James were brothers, or of Caesar's mother and siblings. "

Only an idiot would erect this straw man from what I said. ANY archaeological evidence showing anything about Jesus that would be contemporary for Jesus, would help make the case for an historical Jesus. And thus far we have...none.

"No, you're the one erecting straw men, I just return and repeat my same basic point, and unless I'm strawmaning myself, then it doesn't apply."

Once again, the fact that you've ignored how what you say is a straw man, doesn't mean you haven't been erecting them left and right.

Obfuscation, lies, and insults. Got anything else? Drinking Beverage

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, 09:59 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is a firsthand account of Paul meeting people making claims to be firsthand eye witnesses. That it is true is an assumption you make (true in that it actually happened to Paul and true that the people he met were telling him something true/factually accurate). Paul didn't meet Jesus, ever. Therefore, Paul CAN'T be an eye witness to Jesus nor can he have a firsthand account. You're lying, point blank.

What's ridiculous about the claiming non-sense, is that in can be applied to pretty much everything. A scientific study, is a claimed account, of what some people claim to have done and claimed to have observed in a laboratory. The earth is round, is claim made by others based on their claimed observation, and claimed calculations.

Holocaust survivors, are people claiming to have been there, and claiming to have witnessed the actions they observed, etc.....

Meaning that you don't understand how science works. We already knew that. It has been well established that your understanding of science is painfully pathetic. Thanks for reminding us. Thumbsup

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, 10:15 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
At work.

I can't believe Tomasia threw in a holocaust comment.

Whether specifically for the 'Knee jerk' response or what ever but..... Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
21-02-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
Tomato,
I'm not their peer.
I'm better than all of them. Angel

But thanks for more generalizations about atheists.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-02-2017, 10:21 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You make it clear that you don't read replies to you when you write such drivel, also in my previous post:

When your replies are strawmen, I don’t reply to them. If you want to argue anything beside the points I’ve raised, they’ll be ignored as well.

Quote:"And yet again you ignore that we don't have anything from James. We have Paul claiming to have met James. Maybe he met James, or maybe he met someone pretending to be James, or maybe Paul made it all up, or maybe Paul hallucinated it. With no corroborating evidence, it is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion.

Again doofus, here’s the claim: “Jesus had a brother named James”, what evidence do we have regarding this. We have an eye witness account of someone who met James, collaborating that relationship, we have a a variety of NT also collaborating this relationship. We also have Josephus writing of James’s death, collaborating that relationship as well.

So yes, there’s a variety of collaborating evidence that Jesus had a brother named James. Far more than anyone can reasonably ask for.

Quote:But (yet again) you presume to know what we are all apparently thinking.

No I just think on certain subjects, atheist like yourself venture into the tinfoil hat territory, and resort to atrociously silly arguments to defend yourself.

Quote:Because the only possible conclusion is that the person claiming to be "James, brother of Jesus" was real and telling Paul the truth? It is literally impossible for Paul to have imagined it, or lied about it, or hallucinated it, or that the person making the claims to him imagined it, or lied about it, or hallucinated it? Seeing as how there is no evidence to corroborate the claims that the person talking to Paul was in fact Jesus' brother, all you have is an assumption. Not evidence (historical or otherwise).

There’s plenty of collaborating evidence that Jesus had a brother named James, including Josephus. In fact we have more than we could ever expect to collaborate that relationship, eye-witness collaboration, nt collaboration, a non-christian historical collaboration.

I’m guessing they all hallucinated it 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, 10:24 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(21-02-2017 09:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's ridiculous about the claiming non-sense, is that in can be applied to pretty much everything. A scientific study, is a claimed account, of what some people claim to have done and claimed to have observed in a laboratory. The earth is round, is claim made by others based on their claimed observation, and claimed calculations.

Holocaust survivors, are people claiming to have been there, and claiming to have witnessed the actions they observed, etc.....

Meaning that you don't understand how science works. We already knew that. It has been well established that your understanding of science is painfully pathetic. Thanks for reminding us. Thumbsup

That's Toxic Tom ™ for ya Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: