Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2012, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 12:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 12:29 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:According to your own source:

"Since the publication of the 2nd edition of Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1926, virtually no major New Testament scholar has offered a refutation of the Christ-myth hypothesis until the publication in 2012 of Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth [...]"

And that reason for that is exacly what I said: "because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship."

Also according to your own source:

Quote:"Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work."

Perfect example of using an Argument from Authority. "Professor of Irish Studies," not an expert in the field. He's respected for sure, but is he actually qualified in the field?
Nope. The citation offered was simply pointing out that Historians have not used their own methodology. A Professor of Entomology could point that out, and would have the same weight. Anyone gets to point out the flaws in anyone's arguments. The insistence of the poster that ALL arguments BE MADE ONLY FROM authority, (which is NOT the Fallacy of Argumentum ad Vericundiam), is HIS own individual peccadillo. The poster also has not established his meeting his own standard with respect to his own standard.

Edit : Oops I forgot the best part. Rubbish.

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
05-11-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 12:29 PM)Free Wrote:  And that reason for that is exacly what I said: "because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship."
It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"? Consider

(05-11-2012 12:29 PM)Free Wrote:  Perfect example of using an Argument from Authority. "Professor of Irish Studies," not an expert in the field. He's respected for sure, but is he actually qualified in the field?
Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 01:04 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 11:07 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 10:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I actually do believe that a historical Jeebus existed, as Acts tells of a giant conflict. No cult, arising from a fabrication would make itself. off that bat, by telling of a huge internecine conflict.

Come on. What about 9/11? There's definitely some mythology there. But there's also some fuckers going on about holographic airplanes and scalar energy beams from space... and they actually believe that shit. Tongue
What the actual fuck is a "scalar energy beam from space"? Shocking

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
05-11-2012, 01:04 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:And that reason for that is exacly what I said: "because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship."


It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"?

Yes. Exactly. It was so easy to refute that the scholars never took it seriously, and for the most part, they still don't. Damn few will waste their time on such nonsense.


Quote:Perfect example of using an Argument from Authority. "Professor of Irish Studies," not an expert in the field. He's respected for sure, but is he actually qualified in the field?/quote]


Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?

Yet another who fails to understand the Argument from Authority fallacy, so here it is again:


Quote:Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a special type of inductive-reasoning argument that usually is presented in the form of a statistical syllogism, which argues the case from the general to the specific. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

He's a professor of "IRISH" studies, not a biblical scholar. Therefore, he is NOT a subject matter expert.

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
05-11-2012, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 02:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 12:51 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 12:29 PM)Free Wrote:  And that reason for that is exacly what I said: "because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship."
It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"? Consider

(05-11-2012 12:29 PM)Free Wrote:  Perfect example of using an Argument from Authority. "Professor of Irish Studies," not an expert in the field. He's respected for sure, but is he actually qualified in the field?
Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?
Vos, you obviously can take care of yourself, but for our young friends, who read this junk, (BTW Vos, maybe we should start a "debating thread", as it might be fun ? as lots of peeps come here asking for debating advice ), anyhoo, as you have seen all that Free does is : cites names, and NEVER content. (the lists of names from Wiki), and never the WORKS of the cited authors and then never discusses the content *of* the works of cited authors. So really he's avoiding entering the debate at all. It's a trick from Debating 101. A REAL debate is ONLY about the CONTENT, and the interpretation of the content of a specific cited author.

I do hope the "rubbish hauler" isn't pissed at our "prove yourself or die" / baptism-by-fire approach, as if he really is an Early Gnostic expert, he would be very interesting, and useful to have around here. Maybe now that he knows we're on to his tricks, he'll realize we're on the same team.

So ...the influence of the Greek Gnostics on the early church cannot be underestimated. They are SO influential that one of them actually wrote the Fourth Gospel. In fact they actually TOOK OVER the Jesus movement. Maybe we could propose a change of topic to that for a while, if it would be acceptable to Free, and the others here ? What say you sirs and madams ? Or should we start a new thread ?

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
05-11-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"?

Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?

Quote:Vos, you obviously can take care of yourself, but for our young friends, who read this junk, (BTW Vos, maybe we should start a "debating thread", as it might be fun ? as lots of peeps come here asking for debating advice ), anyhoo, as you have seen all that Free does is : cites names, and NEVER content. (the lists of names from Wiki), and never the WORKS of the cited authors and then never discusses the content *of* the works of cited authors. So really he's avoiding entering the debate at all. It's a trick from Debating 101. A REAL debate is ONLY about the CONTENT, and the interpretation of the content of a specific cited author.

I do hope the "rubbish hauler" isn't pissed at our "prove yourself or die" / baptism-by-fire approach, as if he really is an Early Gnostic expert, he would be very interesting, and useful to have around here. Maybe now that he knows we're on to his tricks, he'll realize we're on the same team.

So ...the influence of the Greek Gnostics on the early church cannot be underestimated. They are SO influential that one of them actually wrote the Fourth Gospel. In fact they actually TOOK OVER the Jesus movement. Maybe we could propose a change of topic to that for a while, if it would be acceptable to Free, and the others here ? What say you sirs and madams ? Or should we start a new thread ?


You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are not well versed in this subject, but you have no hope of doing that to the reasonable and intelligent viewers here.

Fact of the matter is, all your content has been dealt with and exposed for what it actually is. You go around telling people that the vast majority of the world's scholars are all wrong, and that your Jesus/Christ Mythicism view is the true vision of Jesus/Christ through the eyes of Paul.

Although you have the right to your opinion, I equally have the right to destroy it for the rubbish it actually is. It's just another stupid religious view that, as an atheist and reasonable person, I find deplorable and ridiculous, just like the rest of Christianity's religious denominations. You are trying to sell a Mythicist view of this Jesus Christ guy that makes absolutely no sense when compared to the actual textual evidence. It's so contradictory that it requires wishfull thinking and special pleading to put up even a semblance of a decent argument.

At the end of the day though, it is what I say it is.

Garbage.

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
05-11-2012, 02:41 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 02:34 PM)Free Wrote:  It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"?

Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?

Quote:Vos, you obviously can take care of yourself, but for our young friends, who read this junk, (BTW Vos, maybe we should start a "debating thread", as it might be fun ? as lots of peeps come here asking for debating advice ), anyhoo, as you have seen all that Free does is : cites names, and NEVER content. (the lists of names from Wiki), and never the WORKS of the cited authors and then never discusses the content *of* the works of cited authors. So really he's avoiding entering the debate at all. It's a trick from Debating 101. A REAL debate is ONLY about the CONTENT, and the interpretation of the content of a specific cited author.

I do hope the "rubbish hauler" isn't pissed at our "prove yourself or die" / baptism-by-fire approach, as if he really is an Early Gnostic expert, he would be very interesting, and useful to have around here. Maybe now that he knows we're on to his tricks, he'll realize we're on the same team.

So ...the influence of the Greek Gnostics on the early church cannot be underestimated. They are SO influential that one of them actually wrote the Fourth Gospel. In fact they actually TOOK OVER the Jesus movement. Maybe we could propose a change of topic to that for a while, if it would be acceptable to Free, and the others here ? What say you sirs and madams ? Or should we start a new thread ?


You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are not well versed in this subject, but you have no hope of doing that to the reasonable and intelligent viewers here.

Fact of the matter is, all your content has been dealt with and exposed for what it actually is. You go around telling people that the vast majority of the world's scholars are all wrong, and that your Jesus/Christ Mythicism view is the true vision of Jesus/Christ through the eyes of Paul.

Although you have the right to your opinion, I equally have the right to destroy it for the rubbish it actually is. It's just another stupid religious view that, as an atheist and reasonable person, I find deplorable and ridiculous, just like the rest of Christianity's religious denominations. You are trying to sell a Mythicist view of this Jesus Christ guy that makes absolutely no sense when compared to the actual textual evidence. It's so contradictory that it requires wishfull thinking and special pleading to put up even a semblance of a decent argument.

At the end of the day though, it is what I say it is.

Garbage.
MY content has NEVER been addressed, specifically, and neither has what I was speaking of, (proving Free cannot follow an English sentence) the CONTENT of the cited authors. You're dismissive, (insulting of the other reader), "pull the wool over" bullshit is obvious sour-grapes. You have neither "destroyed nor exposed" even ONE thing. You haven't even BEGUN to address one exegetical point. Nice try rubbish hauler.

Pure garbage you are.

Rubbish

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
05-11-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 02:34 PM)Free Wrote:  It took almost a hundred years to be refuted by a well-known scholar because it is "so easily dismantled my mere reason and logic"?

Argument from authority? Hardly. Go read up on logical fallacies. And again, that's your own source. Confirmation bias much?



You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are not well versed in this subject, but you have no hope of doing that to the reasonable and intelligent viewers here.

Fact of the matter is, all your content has been dealt with and exposed for what it actually is. You go around telling people that the vast majority of the world's scholars are all wrong, and that your Jesus/Christ Mythicism view is the true vision of Jesus/Christ through the eyes of Paul.

Although you have the right to your opinion, I equally have the right to destroy it for the rubbish it actually is. It's just another stupid religious view that, as an atheist and reasonable person, I find deplorable and ridiculous, just like the rest of Christianity's religious denominations. You are trying to sell a Mythicist view of this Jesus Christ guy that makes absolutely no sense when compared to the actual textual evidence. It's so contradictory that it requires wishfull thinking and special pleading to put up even a semblance of a decent argument.

At the end of the day though, it is what I say it is.

Garbage.
MY content has NEVER been addressed, specifically, and neither has what I was speaking of, (proving Free cannot follow an English sentence) the CONTENT of the cited authors. You're dismissive, (insulting of the other reader), "pull the wool over" bullshit is obvious sour-grapes. You have neither "destroyed nor exposed" even ONE thing. You haven't even BEGUN to address one exegetical point. Nice try rubbish hauler.

Pure garbage you are.

Rubbish
Garbage.

You were called out as a Jesus/Christ Mythicist. You are trying to sell a religious view of scripture to whoever buys into it. You are just another person jumping on the Mythicist bandwagon in some ridiculous effort to distort the meaning of ancient religious texts from what is already known to something so implausible as to do nothing more than represent a lie.

That's unacceptable. That's like saying the Big Bang never happened, but offer no good evidence for anything else.

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
05-11-2012, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 05:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 02:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  MY content has NEVER been addressed, specifically, and neither has what I was speaking of, (proving Free cannot follow an English sentence) the CONTENT of the cited authors. You're dismissive, (insulting of the other reader), "pull the wool over" bullshit is obvious sour-grapes. You have neither "destroyed nor exposed" even ONE thing. You haven't even BEGUN to address one exegetical point. Nice try rubbish hauler.

Pure garbage you are.

Rubbish
Garbage.

You were called out as a Jesus/Christ Mythicist. You are trying to sell a religious view of scripture to whoever buys into it. You are just another person jumping on the Mythicist bandwagon in some ridiculous effort to distort the meaning of ancient religious texts from what is already known to something so implausible as to do nothing more than represent a lie.

That's unacceptable. That's like saying the Big Bang never happened, but offer no good evidence for anything else.

Nope. I said there WAS such a view. It is not my view. YOU did not even mention Bultmann until I did, and YOU STILL have not addressed any of the points in my cited references. More attempted deflection. I am nether a Mythicist nor nor a fan of Bultmann. You are so uneducated in these matters, you cannot think out of your tiny little Fundie box, and proves you lack the background to even begin to discuss this subject. You cannot say I am something I am not. I have said I DO accept there probably was a Yeshua.
You have labeled me with a label you know does not apply. Therefore, not only are you incompetent here, you are a liar, and a deceiver.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Oh, and here. I'll make a deposit of "rubbishes. Here are 10 "rubbishes". For the next ten posts of your's. They will apply to the following 10 posts.
Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish
Feel free to draw from your bank of rubbbish.

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
05-11-2012, 03:34 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:You were called out as a Jesus/Christ Mythicist. You are trying to sell a religious view of scripture to whoever buys into it. You are just another person jumping on the Mythicist bandwagon in some ridiculous effort to distort the meaning of ancient religious texts from what is already known to something so implausible as to do nothing more than represent a lie.

That's unacceptable. That's like saying the Big Bang never happened, but offer no good evidence for anything else.

Nope. I said there WAS such a view. It is not my view.

Bullshit. In earlier posts you were saying how "wrong" I was and that whatever you were saying was correct. If you can claim me to be wrong by using another view, then you have adopted that view. Period.


Quote:YOU did not even mention Bultmann until I did,

Why would I mention him? Of the thousands of scholars world-wide, why him? I know better than him.


Quote:and YOU STILL have not addressed any of the points in my cited references.

I have addressed them all.

Quote:I am nether a Mythicist nor nor a fan of Bultmann.

Bullshit. You reek of Mythicism and praise Bultmann.



Quote:You are so uneducated in these matters, you cannot think out of your tiny little Fundie box, and proves you lack the background to even begin to discuss this subject.

Hilarious that you would consider an atheist a fundie. LOL



Quote:You cannot say I am something I am not.

You are towing the Mythicist line, and since I exposed you for it, you are now trying to deny it. Why? It is what it is. You just don't like the fact that somebody else knows about it, and calls it precisely what it is.



Quote:I have said I DO accept there probably was a Yeshua.

So? What does that have to do with your Mythicist belief that Paul viewed Christ as a totally seperate entity from this Jesus guy?

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: