Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2012, 10:44 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Are you sure that you looked at the evidence he provided you with? At the end of the post you responded to, there are two links to other threads. Did you read them?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 10:50 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 10:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Are you sure that you looked at the evidence he provided you with? At the end of the post you responded to, there are two links to other threads. Did you read them?

Yes.

1. All assertion.
2. No scholarly consensus.
3. No historical method employed.


Did you not notice that?

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, 10:57 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 10:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes.

1. All assertion.
2. No scholarly consensus.
3. No historical method employed.


Did you not notice that?
I haven't read it, though I did notice that he had a bunch of external references, making me wonder how you came to conclusion number one. That being said, I don't know whether or not Jesus as a historical person existed, all I know is that it's doubtful for reasons mentioned earlier.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 11:04 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 05:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  In conclusion:
This poster cannot be taken seriously.
He wishes.

False assertions in every case. The evidence was provided and he ignored it. There are MANY references in the posted links.

There EXISTS NO "scholarly consensus", on anything that HE can provide. This argument is not about "scholarly consensus". There has NEVER been a poll. Bad faith demonstrated. Free KNOWS this. Attempted deflection, and no attempt to deal with substance of arguments presented.

Paul's, and many other's admitted deceptions here :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church
Other references provided above. He knew this and attempted to lie. More bad faith demonstrated.

He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread, or the Resurrection thread, where there are mountains of evidence. There does not have to be scholarly concensus for something to be true, and this is NOT about "scholarly concensus". Attempted defection. No real reply to argguments. Lies. The evidence is in the posted references.

In conclusion:
Nice try at deflection, and no attempt to deal with substance.
Free cannot be taken seriously, and is obviously no scholar.

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, 11:10 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 10:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 10:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes.

1. All assertion.
2. No scholarly consensus.
3. No historical method employed.


Did you not notice that?
I haven't read it, though I did notice that he had a bunch of external references, making me wonder how you came to conclusion number one. That being said, I don't know whether or not Jesus as a historical person existed, all I know is that it's doubtful for reasons mentioned earlier.


I'm not saying there isn't room for some doubt, because when it comes to history, nothing is 100% conclusive.

However, with that said: the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and the lack of contrary evidence makes the argument for historicity far more plausible than the argument for total mythology.

The mythology argument is full of assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, lacks evidence, and draws in more quacks than the funny farm.

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, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 11:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 11:10 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 10:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I haven't read it, though I did notice that he had a bunch of external references, making me wonder how you came to conclusion number one. That being said, I don't know whether or not Jesus as a historical person existed, all I know is that it's doubtful for reasons mentioned earlier.


I'm not saying there isn't room for some doubt, because when it comes to history, nothing is 100% conclusive.

However, with that said: the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and the lack of contrary evidence makes the argument for historicity far more plausible than the argument for total mythology.

The mythology argument is full of assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, lacks evidence, and draws in more quacks than the funny farm.

Assertions, ad populum argument, no definition of what constitutes "more plausible", or what the standard actually is.
Has not demonstrated that Probability and Bayesian Statistics are appropriate to historical examinations. In fact the "scholarly consensus" in History, is that this sort of thing is NOT appropriate use of Probability, unless the probability of the underlying events can be determined. In this case they cannot, and in fact a resurrection is the LEAST probable event in the history of the universe, as it has never been observed.
No reply.
Generalizations.
Ad hominem.
Attempted deflection.
Total inability to deal with actual augments.
Stated there is "scholarly consensus" with no evidence for that, or how he knows that, or at what point he determined that.
Using "scholarly consensus" as a Red Herring.
Repeated same statement evidence of inability to deal with evidence presented.
Response of a lazy person.

Nice try, Your Majesty. Try harder. Bowing BowingBowingBowingBowing

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, 11:30 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:In conclusion:
This poster cannot be taken seriously.

He wishes.

False assertions in every case. The evidence was provided and he ignored it. There are MANY references in the posted links.

Yet not one of those links leads to one single qualified expert who has a consensus among his peers.



Quote:There EXISTS NO "scholarly consensus", on anything that HE can provide. This argument is not about "scholarly consensus". There has NEVER been a poll.


The scholarly consensus is the world authority on the subject. Virtually ALL biblical scholars worldwide agree on the crucifixion of Jesus.

More info about that here:

Wiki Wrote:Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Quote:Paul's, and many other's admitted deceptions here :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church
Other references provided above. He knew this and attempted to lie. More bad faith demonstrated.

These threads you posted are assertive and opinionated, and lack any relevance to the subject at hand. We find no scholarly consensus and no historical method employed here. We don't even find one single credible expert.

Quote:He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread, or the Resurrection thread, where there are mountains of evidence. There does not have to be scholarly concensus for something to be true, and this is NOT about "scholarly concensus". Attempted defection. No real reply to argguments. Lies. The evidence is in the posted references.

Why refute an opinion? What good would it do? It's only an unsupported opinion that finds no support with any number of scholars anywhere. You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to laugh at it.

The links you provide are to non experts in the field, so why take them any more seriously than I take you?

Quote:In conclusion:
Nice try at deflection, and no attempt to deal with substance.
Free cannot be taken seriously, and is obviously no scholar.

There was no substance to deflect. Never said I was a scholar, but I am smart enough to use their scholarship rather than try to bluff through this topic by blowing nothing but hot air like you do.

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, 11:33 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 11:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 11:10 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm not saying there isn't room for some doubt, because when it comes to history, nothing is 100% conclusive.

However, with that said: the evidence, the scholarly consensus, and the lack of contrary evidence makes the argument for historicity far more plausible than the argument for total mythology.

The mythology argument is full of assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, lacks evidence, and draws in more quacks than the funny farm.

Assertions, ad populum argument, no definition of what constitutes "more plausible", or what the standard actually is.
Has not demonstrated that Probability and Bayesian Statistics are appropriate to historical examinations. In fact the "scholarly consensus" in History, is that this sort of thing is NOT appropriate use of Probability, unless the probability of the underlying events can be determined. In this case they cannot, and in fact a resurrection is the LEAST probable event in the history of the universe, as it has never been observed.
No reply.
Generalizations.
Ad hominem.
Attempted deflection.
Total inability to deal with actual augments.
Stated there is "scholarly consensus" with no evidence for that, or how he knows that, or at what point he determined that.
Using "scholarly consensus" as a Red Herring.
Repeated same statement evidence of inability to deal with evidence presented.
Response of a lazy person.

Nice try, Your Majesty. Try harder. Bowing BowingBowingBowingBowing

Don't take it so hard. Perhaps we can get a Christian in here who will say, "Jesus love you?"

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
03-11-2012, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 06:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
No definition of "qualified expert". More deflection.
No proof of "worldwide" anything.
100% Bullshit.
This is NOT about consensus.
Totally misunderstands what this is about.
No one said this was about "determining" worldwide consensus.
Wiki is NOT "worldwide" consensus, just because Wiki asserts it.
Attempts to appear as expert with use of "worldwide consensus" then admits he is not.
If worldwide consensus was the standard we would still think the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe.

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, 11:44 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:No definition of "qualified expert". More deflection.
No proof of "worldwide" anything.
100% Bullshit.
This is NOT about consensus.
Totally misunderstands what this is about.
No one said this was about "determining" worldwide consensus.
Wiki is NOT "worldwide" consensus, just because Wiki asserts it.
Attempts to appear as expert with use of "worldwide consensus" the admits he is not.
If worldwide consensus was the standard we would still think the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe.

Pointless bickering. Nothing useful to discuss.

Good night

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: