Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2012, 03:37 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 03:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: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?
Rubbish #1 used / 9 remain .

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 03:41 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Seriously, what the fuck is actually going on.

All I am seeing is Free calling Bucky a Jesus mythoicosldosnsn??

You know what?

Free, I am seeing some ad-Homs. How about Bucky actually takes this to the Boxing ring?

I have been thinking about it and have not even gotten close as to what the fuck Free is argueing here and how it applies.

Perhaps dumb it down for a fifteen yearold who has barely touched anything no scientific in a long time.

Please link me to what exact information BOTH of you are talking about as well.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 04:01 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 04:14 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 03:41 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Seriously, what the fuck is actually going on.

All I am seeing is Free calling Bucky a Jesus mythoicosldosnsn??

You know what?

Free, I am seeing some ad-Homs. How about Bucky actually takes this to the Boxing ring?

I have been thinking about it and have not even gotten close as to what the fuck Free is argueing here and how it applies.

Perhaps dumb it down for a fifteen yearold who has barely touched anything no scientific in a long time.

Please link me to what exact information BOTH of you are talking about as well.

Bucky has brought an argument from another thread into this one and confusing anyone who reads it.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint-Paul

Bucky's view is clearly one of the many variations of Jesus/Christ Mythicism.

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

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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, 04:52 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 03:41 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Seriously, what the fuck is actually going on.

All I am seeing is Free calling Bucky a Jesus mythoicosldosnsn??

You know what?

Free, I am seeing some ad-Homs. How about Bucky actually takes this to the Boxing ring?

I have been thinking about it and have not even gotten close as to what the fuck Free is argueing here and how it applies.

Perhaps dumb it down for a fifteen yearold who has barely touched anything no scientific in a long time.

Please link me to what exact information BOTH of you are talking about as well.
Hey A2, it's a rubbish fight. It's a nothing. It's not worth a debate, as we're not even talking about the same thing.

There is or was a movement called Mythicism :
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/my...Jg3ZGf4TCM

This was a label applied to people who denied that there actually was an historical person named Jeebus.

Apparently, wherever Free went to school, (a LONG time ago), it must have been a big deal. Mythicism, (way back), was based on Jeebus' (supposed) similarity to other (supposed) myths.

Anyway, there is, in Biblical scholarship, another, completely different idea, but which uses a cognate term, regarding the
authentic, or real use of Mythology in general, (as a general from of literary expression).

1. Mythicism is a specific movement about the historical reality of Jeebus.
2. Mythology is a form of literature.

He's talking about 1, and I'm talking about 2.
He refuses to accept the facts.

#1 has evolved from the "myth" syncretism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
position of "similarity", (or whatever it was based on, I really don't know), and there really are legitimate questions about whether he actually really the person as portrayed in scripture. There are very good reasons to think not. I don't buy them, but they are out there. There are also good reasons to think that the Saul who wrote the Pauline Letters, is NOT the Saul in Acts, as their philosophies are different about some important matters, thus the "Jesus" in one, could not be the "Jesus" in the other. That is not to say, there WAS no Jesus.

#2 is a much more complex notion of what "authentic" *Myth* is, and how that relates to the Christian message.
You can read, (and need to read anyway, as part of your education), a book by Rudolf Bultmann, called "Jesus Christ and Mythology". You can get it at most any library. You need to understand what "mythology" means, (in terms of "authentic literature"). and what that sort of legitimate literature, is all about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 05:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 03:41 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Seriously, what the fuck is actually going on.

All I am seeing is Free calling Bucky a Jesus mythoicosldosnsn??

You know what?

Free, I am seeing some ad-Homs. How about Bucky actually takes this to the Boxing ring?

I have been thinking about it and have not even gotten close as to what the fuck Free is argueing here and how it applies.

Perhaps dumb it down for a fifteen yearold who has barely touched anything no scientific in a long time.

Please link me to what exact information BOTH of you are talking about as well.

Bucky has brought an argument from another thread into this one and confusing anyone who reads it.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint-Paul

Bucky's view is clearly one of the many variations of Jesus/Christ Mythicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Rubbish #2, 8 remain.

Free is very uneducated in the field of Biblical Scholarship. He see things only from the POV of an Historian, and is totally clueless about the major movements and cross-currents in Biblical Studies. He's applying a label, from History, that doesn't fit, secondary to his ignorance. Meh. It's a common error. Historians, (like Free and Habermas) think they can apply their Historical methods to understand a culture which needs further work. It's why there ARE departments of Biblical Studies, and Ancient Near Eastern Semitic Languages and Cultures at all. History is too general to deal with the complexities of this subject. He has never once examined the content and exegesis of any of the texts cited in the RELATED, SUPPORTIVE threads. He just dismisses, arrogantly, pompously, everything, and can't take his own medicine. Meh

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 09:15 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
After reading through the whole thing, I had a hunch both sides are missing something. Even so, Free, you need to substantiate your points better. State clearly why and how you disagree with the others, and back that up clearly too. There's quite a lot of things to learn here though.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 09:15 PM)robotworld Wrote:  After reading through the whole thing, I had a hunch both sides are missing something. Even so, Free, you need to substantiate your points better. State clearly why and how you disagree with the others, and back that up clearly too. There's quite a lot of things to learn here though.
Up until the end of our discussion on Tacitus, I had my position on it explained using evidence, reason, logic, scholarly consensus, and plausible theory. My objective was to simply supply the best argument possible to qualify my position on the historicity of Jesus. Up until then, we had a fabulous and fruitful debate.

That effectively changed with Bucky entering the conversation with his opening comment towards me as:

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

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid197057

So, as you can see, the first direct thing he says to me is an ad hominem. In addition to that, he goes on in that post by making unsubstantiated claims regarding what I had said about Tacitus. He uses no references, no links, and no good reasoning to justify his claims. At the bottom of his post, he tries to re-direct me to another topic on another issue, as if it had anything to do with Tacitus.

In the post following his, you can see what I said, or rather, what I didn't say. Since he failed to provide any references, links, or reasoning to support his claims about Tacitus, I rightfully ignored what he said as it was mere assertion. I tend to ignore assertion because I don't like to take the time debating with people who do not demonstrate the common courtesy of supplying at least some kind of justification to hold their position.

Afterwards, it digressed to bickering, with his keeping up the ad homs, and me continuing to call his claims "bullshit," because without justification, that's exactly what they are. Anyways, it simply went spiraling out of control from there.

Afterwards, Vosur made another post here asking me to refute Bucky. I agreed, and then broke down Bucky's assertions right HERE.

As you can see, I attacked his argument, because his argument had not be substantiated, was unsupported, assertive without evidence, and wildly speculative. In short, Bucky never made any actual points to refute because he never substantiated his assertions in any way whatsoever. Assertions are not evidence, as I'm sure you already know. If assertions were to be considered evidence, then wouldn't anything anyone asserted be true?

That's not how debates work. A good debate requires at least some kind of evidence, consensus, and good reasoning to be viable, but Bucky provided absolutely none of that. That is why I attacked his method of argument instead of what he said, because he really didn't say anything that warranted a response.

So I kicked the shit out of his method of argument to drive home a point, a point which should have been understood as "provide evidence, consensus, substance, and reasoning, and then maybe we can talk."

And that's exactly what happened, and why we are now in this position.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
06-11-2012, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2012 07:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Rubbish #3 / 7 remain before next deposit

Free entered this tread at post #108, by posing an illogical false dilemma.

He said "Unfortunately, the atheist who asked for proof of any writings regarding Jesus to be writings that were written during the time of Jesus has gotten himself into a bit of a bad situation. Let me explain. Before the atheist can even ask for such proof, he must first prove that Jesus existed during the time in question. Since he is saying he wants proof of any writings regarding Jesus to be written during Jesus time, he must acknowledge as factual that Jesus actually existed during a specific time. Isn't this just logical?"

First of all, Free has it backwards, and has changed the focus of this thread, as set up by A^2. The debate is "proof of Jesus", NOT "proof of writings" about Jesus. Free has twisted the debate to suit his paradigm. A^2 set up the thread asking IF there are proofs of JESUS, not "proofs of writings". Free has reversed the thread topic, and essentialy said "Proof of Jesus proves writings". That is utter nonsense.

Secondly, Free asks "Isn't this just logical?" Actually it is not logical. Not logical at all. Anyone can ask for anything they want. If someone wants to ask that documents be produced from the time during which Jesus *may* have existed, as inferential evidence of Jesus' existence, that is a perfectly legitimate request. The implication is that IF there are documents, or evidence, or writings, THEN they *could* be evidence for a Jesus. So here Free begins to set his own personal standards, and expects the world to comply, with no explanation. He then asks for an acknowledgement, for his false illogical standard, for something which is actually a straw-man. We CAN ask that writings be produced as evidence if we like, as the absence of writings, IS, or could be at least the beginnings of a negative inferential case. If Jesus never existed there would be no writings. Free attempted to confuse the matter of *if* and *was*. The conditional, or possible fact, equated with an assertion of fact. No one is making the assertion of fact. The request for documentation is CONDITIONAL upon the possible. Asking for evidence of a possible fact, is not an assertion of a fact. This appallingly blatant error in Logic, made me assume someone would throw it in his face, so I didn't even look at the thread for a while, as that was such an obvious bit of utter nonsense.

In post #110 he continued the equivocation and deflection with Vosur, by playing word games, and not answering the request. At this point, one is forced to begin to wonder, what Free's purpose was for even entering this thread. At the end of this post, he arrogantly posted a Bowing figure, to acknowledge his self-congratulatory attempt to say he had just made an irrefutable argument. In fact it was nonsense, and he continued his oblivious walk down the path of thinking he had made an irrefutable argument, which actually was not. Asking for ANY evidence within a general time period, of ANY Jesus actually would be fine, and Christians cannot produce ANY from the time PERIOD he is alleged to have lived. A range of dates would be acceptable. NO exact dates are necessary, as there are not ANY documents. If there were any, THEN dating might become important. Again, he created a false standard, a "straw-man", and no one questioned this.

At the end of post #110 Free *makes* his (false) imaginary Christian say : "Personally, I don't claim anything, so produce the date he existed from historical records or your request is bogus.".

Obviously THAT is no Christian. A real Christian would NEVER say that, and Free knows it. A Christian would assert *something* about an historical Jesus' existence. He might not have exact dates, but he would have an approximate date range.
This ridiculous (false) assumption also went unchallenged.

The crap went on in #115. Free stated : "But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not. If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period. No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there."

That is patently false. Vosur was saying IF, (I repeat IF.... IF...) he existed, the writing would come from that range of dates. It's a *conditional* request, and Free has turned it into an absolute unconditional request. He fails to understand a conditional vs unconditional standard, and request, conditional language, and conditional Logic. Obviously this person never took the SAT test.

AT this point I started watching, thinking Free was a Theist, up to some nonsense, as he had demonstrated bad faith at this point, and blatant errors in Logic.

The nonsense continued in post #120. He continued the absolute standard, when all that was being asked for was a *conditional* request. The point was IF. IF Jesus existed, there would be concurrent documents. This is where Free, basically derailed this thread, with his faulty Logic, and fallacious straw-man. He denied a simple English "conditional", request, and asserted an impossible absolute unconditional reversed standard.

Free said "You cannot say, 'I agree with the scholars that Jesus existed around AD33' and then say, "Jesus did not exist."

Wrong. We can say, "I might agree with scholars that Jesus might have existed IF ..."
What Free sets up, is NOT what was being said. The implied statement would be "IF scholars are correct, and IF Jesus existed around 33AD, *then* there would be evidence. IF. Then. It's a conditional statement, which Free attempted to turn into an declarative statement.
Again, it was looking to me, he was operating in bad faith.

Then in #133 Free says in response to Chas : "If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position."

That is absolutely false. The position is NOT affirmation, it's CONDITIONAL affirmation.

In post #147, free said concerning Tacitus, : "1. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were
in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus- more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.
2. These records, the most ancient of all human history, are still seen engraved on stone.
3. The boundaries now fixed by Claudius may be easily recognized, as they are specified in the public records.
4. I do not find in any historian or in the daily register that Antonia, Germanicus's mother ...
5. But we have learnt that it suits the dignity of the Roman people to
reserve history for great achievements, and to leave such details to the
city's daily register.
6. I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consul-elect, proposed a motion ..."

In doing so, Free used a standard of those who may have been a NOBLE Roman, or maybe an important Roman military official, or NON-Peasant, or non-slave class person on a census, and pretended it was applicable to peasants in the Galilee. That is preposterous. No one "engraved" the names of ANY Galilean peasants anywhere, anytime, and FREE knows it. Bad faith, and ignorance of History and Ancient culture are demonstrated here. There are no engravings of Jesus in his pre-christ state, or records of him actually ON a Roman census. The there are no engravings, or images of him from his actual lifetime, before his status in the Christian belief system was raised to the mythological "Exalted One". If Free has some, lets see them.

In post #149, he accused Chas of "moving the goal posts". This is more bad faith. ANY Historian knows that what was acceptable for use in Rome, for Roman nobility, and public figures is NOT applicable to peasants in the Galilee.

Again THIS went unchallenged.

Then in the same post Free made his statement about "Christ". "So there you can see that Tacitus used the works of other historians when he wrote his history of the fires of Rome, which includes the part about Christ."

"Christ" is a title. Not a name. The fact that Tacitus misunderstood this leads many to easily doubt what he was saying. There is no reason to assume the "christ" is the same "Anointed one" as the Jesus figure.

In post #151 Free is the one actually moving the goal posts. The OP started out asking for documents, and here Free is saying he doesn't need any.

"And why is it any more reasonable for him to list a specific resource about Christ than it is for him to list a source for anything else? He doesn't list a source for every thing and everyone, so should we then doubt everything?" "Is that actually reasonable?"

Yes it is. Why ? Because that's the point of the thread, and Tacitus used a title as a name, and there were more than one Jesus, and more than one person who were though to be "the christ". It's MORE than reasonable.

Then Free says "I like to think we represent reason and intelligence, as opposed to beliefs and and a lack of reason.",
and arrogantly stated ONLY his way is acceptable, and anything else "lacks reason", when in fact HE has shown very little.

Then in post #153 Free says : "Tacitus is so credible, and also why he is the definitive resource for historians researching about ancient Rome."

We are NOT talking about ancient Rome. We are talking about ancient Israel. The standards and activities of every part and nature of those societies were vastly different.

Then, and VERY importantly FREE says :
"But there is simply no good reason to doubt that his history about Pilate crucifying Christ isn't factual."

This belies an utter and complete lack of Theological training and understanding of the matter at hand.. In Theology, Jesus did not BECOME the "Christ" until he performed the salvific action. And ALL the ancient texts have DIFFERENT ideas about that, and when he BECAME the "christ". Jesus was not born a "christ". He became the "christ". For example in Paul, (not all), but many times says Jesus "was the Exalted One" and THEN, at that time *became* the "christ". If there WAS a "christ'" who was ALREADY a "christ" at the TIME of a crucifixion, it could NOT be the same "christ" as the Jesus, who was called Christ. Jesus assumed his "Christ-hood", or "christ" status AFTER the resurrection. I repeat, "Christ" is a title. Thus we see Free, simply knows no Biblical context, or Christian nuance.

It was at this point I began to think I would disabuse Free, of some of his ignorant assumptions, he arrogantly spouted.

In post #156 Free said ; "Why should we single out the part about Christ and differentiate that from the rest of his works?"

Because he was talking about a distant man, who did not live in Rome. That is reason enough. The fact that Tacitus called him Crestus, even while calling Christians "Christians", is more than enough reason to doubt him. My question in #170, about this went unanswered, as it was inconvenient.

In post #181, Free attempted to end the discussion, prematurely, with a false, entirely, arrogant absolute statement :
He said " 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."

Here in post #182, I finally had enough, as the three lines of evidence, were really only 1, and if Tacitus is eliminated because he did not know what a "Christ" was, there were actually not one. The second and third lines of evidence HAVE been questioned many times, even though Free is not aware of it, or even why, due to his lack of training in Biblical Studies, he is actually unaware of why #2 and #3 do no stand, and could not stand,in any way.

Then I gave a LONG reference why Paul was unreliable, and explained why Josephus was less than reliable. At this point Free is just ignorant, or he is lying. He attempted here to "fire" me as he found me inconvenient, and did not answer, except to post some Wiki things, with no specifics. Then he sad what I said was "bullshit" and he would not refute "bullshit", in post #186, and returned the ad hominem, and we were equal, as HE also engaged in it. Therefore he cannot complain about ad hominems if he also uses them.

Then in post #190, he did his cut and paste triple argument, and NOT ONE attempt to answer the arguments, AND began to employ the standard, capriciously , of "no scholarly consensus" when in fact that was not the standard established at the beginning of the thread. It was contemporary documents. Also Free has NO way of knowing WHAT "scholarly consensus" is at any given point, why it would or would not be something static, how he determined what it is, nor did he propose a way to demonstrate what it is.

In post #197 Free said "The scholarly consensus is the world authority on the subject. Virtually ALL biblical scholars worldwide agree on the crucifixion of Jesus.", with a Wiki quote with no references, and again no method and not a shred of evidence for the statement.

Then he makes the unsupported biased statement " 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"
without even attempting to point out why, as though he thinks he gets to declare things, and just have the world fall in wonder, and worship at his feet. It's very clear, he used to being treated this way. I am fortunate indeed I neither have to have anything to do with him (or attend his classes ? )

In post #200, again he refuted nothing and deflects by saying "Pointless bickering. Nothing useful to discuss", and says he's going to bed.

In # 203 free says "People keep coming up with "which Jesus." The problem with that is that they do not provide one stitch of evidence of any other Jesus who was considered to be the Christ by many Jews, and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate."

After that point, my arguments stand by themselves, which remained unanswered, even while he falsely, arrogantly claims, in post #247, "So I kicked the shit out of his method of argument to drive home a point, a point which should have been understood as "provide evidence, consensus, substance, and reasoning, and then maybe we can talk."

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the premise of this thread. He demanded "consensus" when in fact there exists NO way to determine that. Substance was provided, which he dismissed. Reasoning was used, even while he proved by the *unconditional vs conditional statement* he was incapable of using, and evidence was provided in abundance in the referenced exegetical threads.

In short we have an arrogant, incompetent, illogical, person who is ignorant of his topic, and and makes bald face lies about evidence which is placed in front of his face, and because of his unfamiliarity with the subject of Biblical Studies, is unable to understand the evidence presented, or place it in context, and who feels content to rest on *something or other* he wrote eons ago. Biblical scholarship has come light years, obviously , since he originally wrote a paper, and he thinks it's still valid these many years later. He is so enthralled with himself, he can't see the forest for the trees.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-11-2012, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2012 07:47 AM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:Free entered this tread at post #108, by posing an illogical false dilemma.

He said "Unfortunately, the atheist who asked for proof of any writings regarding Jesus to be writings that were written during the time of Jesus has gotten himself into a bit of a bad situation. Let me explain. Before the atheist can even ask for such proof, he must first prove that Jesus existed during the time in question. Since he is saying he wants proof of any writings regarding Jesus to be written during Jesus time, he must acknowledge as factual that Jesus actually existed during a specific time. Isn't this just logical?"

First of all, Free has it backwards, and has changed the focus of this thread, as set up by A^2. The debate is "proof of Jesus", NOT "proof of writings" about Jesus. Free has twisted the debate to suit his paradigm. A^2 set up the thread asking IF there are proofs of JESUS, not "proofs of writings". Free has reversed the thread topic, and essentialy said "Proof of Jesus proves writings". That is utter nonsense.

Secondly, Free asks "Isn't this just logical?" Actually it is not logical. Not logical at all. Anyone can ask for anything they want. If someone wants to ask that documents be produced from the time during which Jesus *may* have existed, as inferential evidence of Jesus' existence, that is a perfectly legitimate request. The implication is that IF there are documents, or evidence, or writings, THEN they *could* be evidence for a Jesus. So here Free begins to set his own personal standards, and expects the world to comply, with no explanation. He then asks for an acknowledgement, for his false illogical standard, for something which is actually a straw-man. We CAN ask that writings be produced as evidence if we like, as the absence of writings, IS, or could be at least the beginnings of a negative inferential case. If Jesus never existed there would be no writings. Free attempted to confuse the matter of *if* and *was*. The conditional, or possible fact, equated with an assertion of fact. No one is making the assertion of fact. The request for documentation is CONDITIONAL upon the possible. Asking for evidence of a fact, is not an assertion of the fact. This appallingly blatant error in Logic, made me assume someone would throw it in his face, so I didn't even look at the thread for a while, as that was such an obvious bit of utter nonsense.

In post #110 he continued the equivocation and deflection with Vosur, by playing word games, and not answering the request. At this point, one is forced to begin to wonder, what Free's purpose was for even entering this thread. At the end of this post, he arrogantly posted a figure, to acknowledge his self-congratulatory attempt to say he had just made an irrefutable argument. In fact it was nonsense, and he continued his oblivious walk down the path of thinking he had made an irrefutable argument, which actually was not. Asking for ANY evidence within a general time period, of ANY Jesus actually would be fine, and Christians cannot produce ANY from the time PERIOD he is alleged to have lived. A range of dates would be acceptable. NO exact dates are necessary, as there are not ANY documents. If there were any, THEN dating might become important. Again, he created a false standard, a "straw-man", and no one questioned this.

At the end of post #110 Free *makes* his (false) imaginary Christian say : "Personally, I don't claim anything, so produce the date he existed from historical records or your request is bogus.".

Obviously THAT is no Christian. A real Christian would NEVER say that, and Free knows it. A Christian would assert *something* about an historical Jesus' existence. He might not have exact dates, but he would have an approximate date range.
This ridiculous (false) assumption also went unchallenged.

The crap went on in #115. Free stated : "But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not. If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period. No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there."

That is patently false. Vosur was saying IF, (I repeat IF.... IF...) he existed, the writing would come from that range of dates. It's a *conditional* request, and Free has turned it into an absolute unconditional request. He fails to understand a conditional vs unconditional standard, and request, conditional language, and conditional Logic. Obviously this person never took the SAT test.

AT this point I started watching, thinking Free was a Theist, up to some nonsense, as he had demonstrated bad faith at this point, and blatant errors in Logic.

The nonsense continued in post #120. He continued the absolute standard, when all that was being asked for was a *conditional* request. The point was IF. IF Jesus existed, there would be concurrent documents. This is where Free, basically derailed this thread, with his faulty Logic, and fallacious straw-man. He denied a simple English "conditional", request, and asserted an impossible absolute unconditional reversed standard.

Free said "You cannot say, 'I agree with the scholars that Jesus existed around AD33' and then say, "Jesus did not exist."

Wrong. We can say, "I might agree with scholars that Jesus might have existed IF ..."
What Free sets up, is NOT what was being said. The implied statement would be "IF scholars are correct, and IF Jesus existed around 33AD, *then* there would be evidence. IF. Then. It's a conditional statement, which Free attempted to turn into an declarative statement.
Again, it was looking to me, he was operating in bad faith.

Then in #133 Free says in response to Chas : "If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position."

That is absolutely false. The position is NOT affirmation, it's CONDITIONAL affirmation.



The above quote from Bucky will be used against him to demonstrate his lack of ability to understand a simple situation.


Firstly, he moves the goalposts by changing the the wording of what the atheist was requesting in the thread A2 was linking to on those Christian forums. The link A2 gave us leads us directly to the following post:

Quote:I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44243

Bucky fails to understand that the quote above does not show the atheist saying anything in regards to the theist needing to show evidence during the time that Jesus "supposedly" existed, but instead the poster clearly states that the atheist said, "He also wanted to make sure that the writings were "actually" in Jesus time." AD1-AD33."

Contrary to what Bucky asserts, the atheist did NOT request any writngs from the time that Jesus MAY have existed, but requested writings from Jesus' ACTUAL time.

What this means is that the atheist has shot himself in the foot with poor wording of his request. One cannot claim the non-existence of something and then make claims of an ACTUAL time of existence of the very same thing!

Once cannot agree with the scholars as to the ACTUAL time of the existence of Jesus, and then claim Jesus did not exist!

Again, isn't this just logical?

According to the evidence, my point is 100% valid. The evidence speaks for itself.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
06-11-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
rubbish #4 / 6 remain

Free is doing what is called "nitpicking".

A^2, please go to the Christian forum, and ask the poster what exactly he meant to ask, and whether the narrow box Free defined him in, was what he actually meant. Obviously the question the person in the Christian forum was asking was not dependent on a narrow view of the wording, and, while we would have no way of knowing, obviously he was asking for help. The assumption the poster in the Christian Forum was making, FOR HIMSELF was that Jesus actually DID exist. Free is "nitpicking the obvious". But we shall clarify it with the poster in the OP in the Christian Forum. What Free is doing, is attempting to make a distinction without a difference. The question obviously posed is "is there any written evidence from the time that Jesus is thought to have existed". It's called "quibbling".

quib·ble
verb \ˈkwi-bəl\
quib·bledquib·bling
Definition of QUIBBLE
intransitive verb
1
: to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words


Free : "The evidence speaks for itself."

There is no evidence to speak.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: