Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2012, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 09:40 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(02-11-2012 02:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey now, just because he didn't have direct experience about the crucifixion does not, in any way whatsoever, qualify his writing about the crucifixion as being mere hearsay. That is not the definition of hearsay. In fact, the quote of your definition of hearsay is exactly correct, but are you understanding that definition?

Did you see that even your definition describes hearsay as being "information gathered by one person from another person?" Notice the person is not plural?

It has been demonstrated to you that Tacitus used multiple attestations from numerous Roman historians (many of whom he names), Roman Records, Roman Registries, and other Roman authors to complete his works. He has followed the Historical Method to an excellent degree, considering he was an ancient historian.

The method that Tacitus used was designed, as he said, "to put down hearsay in favor of genuine history." Hearsay is generally regarded to be an "utterance," as opposed to written materials. Even the US government makes exceptions to ancient documents to exclude them as being classified as mere hearsay:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_...States_law


Hearsay is not what people think it is. It is generally considered to be an utterance, not multiple written historical documents. Also, when evaluating history, we do not use the same standards that qualify as hearsay that a criminal court would use. After all, it is history, and we use the Historical Method, not criminal legal procedures.
And I will repeat what I just said to Bucky. I was using the Word "Hearsay" as a term for second hand information, or information of an experience that is not direct. In other words, secondhand information. I was arguing that people might not believe Taticus is credible on this issue because we have yet to see the sources that Taticus claims he is citing from.

The legal term perfectly defines what I was saying, so I used to to fit into the meaning I was trying to portray, which means that he hasn't experienced the Crucifixion firsthand, and thus is relying on somebody elses word, and or information. This, in some people's eyes makes Taticus's excerpt on Jesus not as Credible as a first hand "eyewitness" account. While Taticus might be credible in most respects, he only is that way becasue we have corraborating evidence to suggest that he actually is telling the truth. You have yet to supply me a document that confirms the Crucifixion of Christ. Until ther is corraborating, contemporary evidence, or We find out who/What exactly Taticus was sourcing and EVALUATE that evidence, some people are not going to belive in the Historical Yeshua.

this was not me arguing AGAINST the Historical Jesus, but merely asking WHO he was sourcing, and detailing why other people might doubt Taticus's writing on this issue.

Basically, provide corroborating evidence that the Crucifixion took place... and then find out Who/What Taticus was sourcing ( and prove that that is credible) or else you will ALWAYS have naysayers on this issue.

being alive at the time is important because firsthand information is (almost) always better than secondhand information, of which Taticus is using.


I understand what you are saying, but my experience with the so-called "naysayers" over the past few years has lead me to realize that it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, for we will always have naysayers with such a disdain for religion that reason and rationality will never see the light of day with them.

The reality is that virtually all the top historical scholars worldwide agree that Jesus was crucified, and although this may seem like an argument from authority, the truth is that it most certainly is not. The naysayers like to distort the definitions of logical fallacies because they refuse to accept, or simply misunderstand, those definitions.

For example, when we examine all known definitions of "argument from authority" we can safely arrive at the following of what it is:

Quote:1. The person does not have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

2. The claim being made by the person is not within her area(s) of expertise.

3. There is an no adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

However, when we demonstrate a consensus among experts in the field, it is not an argument from authority at all. It is accepted as true. This is a fact, not an assertion.

Those same naysayers will also always attempt to raise the bar each time any good argument and/or evidence is provided. They seem to have also convinced you that this exceptionally high standard of evidence is absolutely required to ascertain the truth about this Jesus guy. The fact of the matter is there is so much evidence to support the crucifixion of Jesus that it is completely unreasonable to contest it.

Think about this. If the bible had not been canonized, we could count the Synoptics, Gospel of John, Acts, 1st Cor, 2nd Cor, and Galatians as independent attestations to the crucifixion of this Jesus guy. That is six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus, with at least 3 of them positively being written by a named contemporary, Paul. Yet, the naysayers like to put all those individual records into a single group and dismiss them all because "Jesus walked on the water." The fact that they even attempt to do this is a fallacy known as special pleading, because they attempt to downplay the relevance of evidence by means of ridicule.

The fact of the matter is, bible or no bible, there are indeed six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus and at least 3 of those records are from a named contemporary known as Paul of Tarsus.

So when the naysayers attempt to claim there are no contemporary sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, it is simply not the truth no matter how they try to slice and dice it.

So what do we have here for evidence?

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from a near contemporary, Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Considering this evidence, do you actually believe the naysayers have any kind of argument at all? Have you not noticed how they always raise the bar, argue from silence, vainly dispute authoritative consensus, and use every fallacy in the book in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence?

Given the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and our ability to effectively reason, the historical confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is considered factual by virtually all authorities in the field, and no amount of naysaying can ever change one iota of it.

So let them "naysay," because at the end of the day the reality is that they have never, not even once, brought either a stitch of evidence or substantive argument to the table. Not even once.

Peace.

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
03-11-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 08:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 02:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  And I will repeat what I just said to Bucky. I was using the Word "Hearsay" as a term for second hand information, or information of an experience that is not direct. In other words, secondhand information. I was arguing that people might not believe Taticus is credible on this issue because we have yet to see the sources that Taticus claims he is citing from.

The legal term perfectly defines what I was saying, so I used to to fit into the meaning I was trying to portray, which means that he hasn't experienced the Crucifixion firsthand, and thus is relying on somebody elses word, and or information. This, in some people's eyes makes Taticus's excerpt on Jesus not as Credible as a first hand "eyewitness" account. While Taticus might be credible in most respects, he only is that way becasue we have corraborating evidence to suggest that he actually is telling the truth. You have yet to supply me a document that confirms the Crucifixion of Christ. Until ther is corraborating, contemporary evidence, or We find out who/What exactly Taticus was sourcing and EVALUATE that evidence, some people are not going to belive in the Historical Yeshua.

this was not me arguing AGAINST the Historical Jesus, but merely asking WHO he was sourcing, and detailing why other people might doubt Taticus's writing on this issue.

Basically, provide corroborating evidence that the Crucifixion took place... and then find out Who/What Taticus was sourcing ( and prove that that is credible) or else you will ALWAYS have naysayers on this issue.

being alive at the time is important because firsthand information is (almost) always better than secondhand information, of which Taticus is using.
I understand what you are saying, but my experience with the so-called "naysayers" over the past few years has lead me to realize that it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, for we will always have naysayers with such a disdain for religion that reason and rationality will never see the light of day with them.

The reality is that the virtually top historical scholars worldwide agree that Jesus was crucified, and although this may seem like an argument from authority, the truth is that it is most certainly not. The naysayers like to distort the definitions of logical fallacies because the refuse to accept, or simply misunderstand those definitions.

For example, when we examine all known definitions of "argument from authority" we can safely arrive at the following one-size-fits-all definition:

Quote:1. The person does not have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

2. The claim being made by the person is not within her area(s) of expertise.

3. There is an no adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

However, when we demonstrate a consensus among experts in the field, it is not an argument from authority at all. It is accepted as true. This is a fact, not an assertion.

Those same naysayers will also always attempt to raise the bar each time any good argument and/or evidence is provided. They seem to have also convinced you that this exceptionally high standard of evidence is absolutely required to ascertain the truth about this Jesus guy. The fact of the matter is there is so much evidence to support the crucifixion of Jesus that it is completely unreasonable to contest it.

Think about this. If the bible had not been canonized, we could count the Synoptics, Gospel of John, Acts, 1st Cor, 2nd Cor, and Galatians as independent attestations to the crucifixion of this Jesus guy. That is six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus, with at least 3 of them positively being written by a named contemporary, Paul. Yet, the naysayers like to put all those individual records into a single group and dismiss them all because "Jesus walked on the water." The fact that they even attempt to do this is a fallacy known as special pleading, because they attempt to downplay the relevance of evidence by means of ridicule.

The fact of the matter is, bible or no bible, there are indeed six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus and at least 3 of those records are from a named contemporary known as Paul of Tarsus.

So when the naysayers attempt to claim there are no contemporary sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, it is simply not the truth no matter how they try to slice and dice it.

So what do we have here for evidence?

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Considering this evidence, do you really actually believe the naysayers have any kind of argument at all? Have you not noticed how they always raise the bar, argue from silence, vainly dispute authoritative consensus, and use every fallacy in the book in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence?

Given the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and our ability to effectively reason, the historical confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is considered factual by virtually all authorities in the field, and no amount of naysaying can ever change one iota of it.

So let them "naysay," because at the end of the day the reality is that they have never, not even once, brought either a stitch of evidence or substantive argument to the table. Not even once.

Peace.

Well then sir, let me be the first. You are simply full of shit.

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Sorry, all these references fail. Tacitus fails for reasons stated above. He had no way of knowing which Jesus he was hearing about,, and the questions of the peasant preacher who would not have merited a trial have not been answered. A Jesus , does not prove THE Jesus YOU are thinking of. Tacitus is therefore unreliable, as there were many Jesuses.

Josephus Chapter 18 is an obvious forgery. I've seen it. It's in different ink, different handwriting, different vocabulary, different syntax, and makes no sense in the flow of the text of Chapter 18. Also ALL the Church Fathers were unaware of this , and would have used it, had it existed. (It's in Milan. Go look at it). There is no original copy of Josephus, and this copy has an obvious interpolation by forging Christian monks. The Chapter 20 reference is to a "James". It may or may not tell us something. There are proposed other interpretations, than that he had to be THIS Jesus' brother. Again, no way of knowing which Jesus he meant.

The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary". He came on the scene AFTER Jesus died, and he ahd every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so. There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer. AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 08:51 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 08:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 08:14 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but my experience with the so-called "naysayers" over the past few years has lead me to realize that it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, for we will always have naysayers with such a disdain for religion that reason and rationality will never see the light of day with them.

The reality is that the virtually top historical scholars worldwide agree that Jesus was crucified, and although this may seem like an argument from authority, the truth is that it is most certainly not. The naysayers like to distort the definitions of logical fallacies because the refuse to accept, or simply misunderstand those definitions.

For example, when we examine all known definitions of "argument from authority" we can safely arrive at the following one-size-fits-all definition:


However, when we demonstrate a consensus among experts in the field, it is not an argument from authority at all. It is accepted as true. This is a fact, not an assertion.

Those same naysayers will also always attempt to raise the bar each time any good argument and/or evidence is provided. They seem to have also convinced you that this exceptionally high standard of evidence is absolutely required to ascertain the truth about this Jesus guy. The fact of the matter is there is so much evidence to support the crucifixion of Jesus that it is completely unreasonable to contest it.

Think about this. If the bible had not been canonized, we could count the Synoptics, Gospel of John, Acts, 1st Cor, 2nd Cor, and Galatians as independent attestations to the crucifixion of this Jesus guy. That is six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus, with at least 3 of them positively being written by a named contemporary, Paul. Yet, the naysayers like to put all those individual records into a single group and dismiss them all because "Jesus walked on the water." The fact that they even attempt to do this is a fallacy known asspecial pleading, because they attempt to downplay the relevance of evidence by means of ridicule.

The fact of the matter is, bible or no bible, there are indeed six 1st century records of the crucifixion of Jesus and at least 3 of those records are from a named contemporary known as Paul of Tarsus.

So when the naysayers attempt to claim there are no contemporary sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, it is simply not the truth no matter how they try to slice and dice it.

So what do we have here for evidence?

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Considering this evidence, do you really actually believe the naysayers have any kind of argument at all? Have you not noticed how they always raise the bar, argue from silence, vainly dispute authoritative consensus, and use every fallacy in the book in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence?

Given the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and our ability to effectively reason, the historical confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is considered factual by virtually all authorities in the field, and no amount of naysaying can ever change one iota of it.

So let them "naysay," because at the end of the day the reality is that they have never, not even once, brought either a stitch of evidence or substantive argument to the table. Not even once.

Peace.

Well then sir, let me be the first. You are simply full of shit.

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Sorry, all these references fail. Tacitus fails for reasons stated above. He had no way of knowing which Jesus he was hearing about,, and the questions of the peasant preacher who would not have merited a trial have not been answered. A Jesus , does not prove THE Jesus YOU are thinking of. Tacitus is therefore unreliable, as there were many Jesuses.

Josephus Chapter 18 is an obvious forgery. I've seen it. It's in different ink, different handwriting, different vocabulary, different syntax, and makes no sense in the flow of the text of Chapter 18. Also ALL the Church Fathers were unaware of this , and would have used it, had it existed. (It's in Milan. Go look at it). There is no original copy of Josephus, and this copy has an obvious interpolation by forging Christian monks. The Chapter 20 reference is to a "James". It may or may not tell us something. There are proposed other interpretations, than that he had to be THIS Jesus' brother. Again, no way of knowing which Jesus he meant.

The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary". He came on the scene AFTER Jesus died, and he ahd every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so. There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer. AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection



And you are an excellent example of the naysayers spoken about in my previous post. Laughat

You even try to change the definition of a simple word of "contemporary," because you refuse to accept that it means the following:


Quote:1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary


And didn't we relieve you of your duties already?

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
03-11-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Deleted: Double Post

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
03-11-2012, 09:08 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 08:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Well then sir, let me be the first. You are simply full of shit.

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.

Sorry, all these references fail. Tacitus fails for reasons stated above. He had no way of knowing which Jesus he was hearing about,, and the questions of the peasant preacher who would not have merited a trial have not been answered. A Jesus , does not prove THE Jesus YOU are thinking of. Tacitus is therefore unreliable, as there were many Jesuses.

Josephus Chapter 18 is an obvious forgery. I've seen it. It's in different ink, different handwriting, different vocabulary, different syntax, and makes no sense in the flow of the text of Chapter 18. Also ALL the Church Fathers were unaware of this , and would have used it, had it existed. (It's in Milan. Go look at it). There is no original copy of Josephus, and this copy has an obvious interpolation by forging Christian monks. The Chapter 20 reference is to a "James". It may or may not tell us something. There are proposed other interpretations, than that he had to be THIS Jesus' brother. Again, no way of knowing which Jesus he meant.

The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary". He came on the scene AFTER Jesus died, and he ahd every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so. There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer. AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection



And you are an excellent example of the naysayers spoken about in my previous post. Laughat

You even try to change the definition of a simple word of "contemporary," because you refuse to accept that it means the following:


Quote:1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary


And didn't we relieve you of your duties already?
No, your Majesty, WE didn't.
Paul never met Jesus. Communication then was vastly different. Paul's resurrected "Anointed One" was NOT Yeshua ben Josef.
It's fatuous to lump every one who disagrees with you as as "naysayer". You forgot to refute the Paul thread, and the resurrection thread. Good luck with that, Your Majesty.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-11-2012, 09:25 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 09:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  And you are an excellent example of the naysayers spoken about in my previous post. Laughat

You even try to change the definition of a simple word of "contemporary," because you refuse to accept that it means the following:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary


And didn't we relieve you of your duties already?
No, your Majesty, WE didn't.
Paul never met Jesus. Communication then was vastly different. Paul's resurrected "Anointed One" was NOT Yeshua ben Josef.
It's fatuous to lump every one who disagrees with you as as "naysayer". You forgot to refute the Paul thread, and the resurrection thread. Good luck with that, Your Majesty.


When what you say is obvious bullshit, why would anyone want to refute bullshit? I think it's better to allow your bullshit to stay un-refuted so that it remains what it is. Your kind of bullshit is the kind of example we need around here so that people of reason and rationality can contrast it against the intelligent posters such as Atothetheist, Vosur, Chas, and a few others.

No, I am satisfied that your bullshit should remain as a testament to your level of intellect.

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
03-11-2012, 09:47 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  When what you say is obvious bullshit, why would anyone want to refute bullshit? I think it's better to allow your bullshit to stay un-refuted so that it remains what it is. Your kind of bullshit is the kind of example we need around here so that people of reason and rationality can contrast it against the intelligent posters such as Atothetheist, Vosur, Chas, and a few others.

No, I am satisfied that your bullshit should remain as a testament to your level of intellect.

Drinking Beverage
I'd very much like you to refute Bucky Ball, even if you think that the points he raised are complete bullshit. I did the same with Kent Hovind's "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" for TheTheist, despite knowing that anyone who took a biology class in high school knows more about it than him.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 09:49 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 09:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  When what you say is obvious bullshit, why would anyone want to refute bullshit? I think it's better to allow your bullshit to stay un-refuted so that it remains what it is. Your kind of bullshit is the kind of example we need around here so that people of reason and rationality can contrast it against the intelligent posters such as Atothetheist, Vosur, Chas, and a few others.

No, I am satisfied that your bullshit should remain as a testament to your level of intellect.

Drinking Beverage
I'd very much like you to refute Bucky Ball, even if you think that the points he raised are complete bullshit. I did the same with Kent Hovind's "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" for TheTheist, despite knowing that anyone who took a biology class in high school knows more about it than him.
Sure. Next post. Watch how easy this actually is.

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
03-11-2012, 10:04 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 09:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No, your Majesty, WE didn't.
Paul never met Jesus. Communication then was vastly different. Paul's resurrected "Anointed One" was NOT Yeshua ben Josef.
It's fatuous to lump every one who disagrees with you as as "naysayer". You forgot to refute the Paul thread, and the resurrection thread. Good luck with that, Your Majesty.


When what you say is obvious bullshit, why would anyone want to refute bullshit? I think it's better to allow your bullshit to stay un-refuted so that it remains what it is. Your kind of bullshit is the kind of example we need around here so that people of reason and rationality can contrast it against the intelligent posters such as Atothetheist, Vosur, Chas, and a few others.

No, I am satisfied that your bullshit should remain as a testament to your level of intellect.

Drinking Beverage
LOL. Obviously. Another who can't.

Drinking Beverage

Oh, I forgot, Bowing Bowing Bowing Your Majesty.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 10:32 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:Well then sir, let me be the first. You are simply full of shit.

1. Roman records from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, historian, senator, and Roman Governor.
2. Jewish records from near contemporary Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian.
3. Christian Records from a contemporary named Paul of Tarsus, Jewish Pharisee/Christian convert.


Tacitus fails for reasons stated above. He had no way of knowing which Jesus he was hearing about

1. No scholarly consensus.
2. No evidence to support.

Conclusion: Unsubstantiated assertion.


Quote:and the questions of the peasant preacher who would not have merited a trial have not been answered. A Jesus , does not prove THE Jesus YOU are thinking of. Tacitus is therefore unreliable, as there were many Jesuses.

1. No evidence in Tacitus about a peasant preacher.
2. No evidence of any other Jesus being considered the Christ is provided.
3. No scholarly consensus.

Conclusion: Unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion.


Quote:Josephus Chapter 18 is an obvious forgery. I've seen it. It's in different ink, different handwriting, different vocabulary, different syntax, and makes no sense in the flow of the text of Chapter 18.

1. No scholarly consensus.
2. Scholarly consensus favors partial interpolation.
3. No evidence provided to support consesus expert opinions on "different ink, different handwriting, different vocabulary, different syntax, and makes no sense in the flow of the text of Chapter 18."

Conclusion: Unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion.


Quote:Also ALL the Church Fathers were unaware of this , and would have used it, had it existed.

1. No reasoning or evidence provided as to why church fathers would have used it.
2. No scholarly consensus.

Conclusion: Unsubstantiated assertion.

Quote:There is no original copy of Josephus, and this copy has an obvious interpolation by forging Christian monks.

1. His use of "interpolation" contradicted his previous statement of it being a complete forgery.
2. No evidence provided to support "interpolation by forging Christian monks."

Conclusion: Contradictory and unsupported assertion.

Quote: The Chapter 20 reference is to a "James". It may or may not tell us something. There are proposed other interpretations, than that he had to be THIS Jesus' brother. Again, no way of knowing which Jesus he meant.

1. Fails to reason that the passage states clearly that this James was the brother of the Jesus who was called Christ.
2. Fails to provide any evidence of any other Jesus who was called Christ and had a brother named James.
3. No scholarly consensus.

Conclusion: Frivilous and pointless argument.


Quote:The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary".

1. Fails to understand that in the context the word "contemporary" means "lived at the same time."
2. Attempts to use special pleading by regarding Paul as "LEAST reliable." Logical fallacy.

Conclusion: Desperate attempt to understate the importance of evidence. Fails to understand basic English word definitions.


Quote:He had every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so.

1. No evidence supplied.
2. Makes unsupported assumptions.
3. No scholarly consensus.

Conclusion: Nothing of note here.



Quote:There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer.

1. Unsupported assertion.
2. No way to determine if the one in Acts was not the letter writer.
3. No scholarly consensus.

Conclusion: Unsupported and unsubstatiated assertion.


Quote: AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.

1. Failed to understand Paul mentions Jesus' crucifixion at 1Co_2:2, Gal_3:1 and numerous other places.
2. Attempts to persuade Jesus Mythicism as a means of explaining Paul's view. (Earl Doherty anyone?)
3. No scholarly consensus.

In conclusion:

This poster failed to produce any evidence to support his assertions and opinions. No scholarly consensus provided. No historical method employed. Ignored obvious Biblical evidence in favor of Mythicism.

This poster cannot be taken seriously.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: