Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(06-11-2012 07:29 AM)Free Wrote:  
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.
Wait a minute. From what I understand, here's how I break down the statement.
"He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33"
This statement is based on one assumption, the assumption that Jesus did exist during that time.

So, in the first place, are there any documents that fall within the time period that document the works of Jesus?
There are two answers: YES and NO (based on the present time)
If YES,
There are such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Am I able to use this particular document to prove the existence of THE Jesus Christians believe in?
If NO,
AT THIS POINT OF TIME, there are no such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Based on this fact, I can thus assert that there is no such person, unless proven otherwise by other RELIABLE sources, or the possibility that there is something missing all of us have overlooked.

This is how I interpret the statement, thus in my opinion what Bucky raised still holds logical grounds.

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
06-11-2012, 08:20 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:[A^2, please go to the Christian forum, and ask the poster what exactly he meant to ask

I take this as an admission on your part that I am correct, since you are asking A2 to ask the thesist to "change" his wording so that it reflects what you think he "meant" rather than what he actually said.

Why can't you deal with what he actually said? Isn't that the reality here? Why must you insist on changing what he said? Is it because you have been proven 100% wrong and now need to move the goal posts again as a last gasp effort to be right?

You are so desperate to be right that it's impossible for you to admit you are wrong.

Pride much?

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
06-11-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(06-11-2012 08:14 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 07:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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:


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.
Wait a minute. From what I understand, here's how I break down the statement.
"He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33"
This statement is based on one assumption, the assumption that Jesus did exist during that time.

So, in the first place, are there any documents that fall within the time period that document the works of Jesus?
There are two answers: YES and NO (based on the present time)
If YES,
There are such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Am I able to use this particular document to prove the existence of THE Jesus Christians believe in?
If NO,
AT THIS POINT OF TIME, there are no such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Based on this fact, I can thus assert that there is no such person, unless proven otherwise by other RELIABLE sources, or the possibility that there is something missing all of us have overlooked.

This is how I interpret the statement, thus in my opinion what Bucky raised still holds logical grounds.
Nope.

The atheist is asking for writings from the actual time of Jesus. Since the atheist is arguing against the existence of Jesus, there can be no actual time of Jesus. It's a simple logical contradiction that I pointed out.

That's all it 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
06-11-2012, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2012 08:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Free is acting like a two year old petulant child, as he thinks he's discovered some "flaw" that no one noticed before. Any rational adult understands this discussion here, or anywhere, in it's broader context, and the general question in it's general meaning.

OK Free dear, you win honey. Here's your sucker. Now go away, and the adults will talk about the subject in adult terms.
Your intro to TTA will be forever colored by this, I hope you realize.

[Image: k2738806.jpg]

Edit : Sarcasm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

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
06-11-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:OK Free dear, you win honey.

Great. Now we can move along.

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
06-11-2012, 08:40 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(06-11-2012 08:24 AM)Free Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 08:14 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Wait a minute. From what I understand, here's how I break down the statement.
"He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33"
This statement is based on one assumption, the assumption that Jesus did exist during that time.

So, in the first place, are there any documents that fall within the time period that document the works of Jesus?
There are two answers: YES and NO (based on the present time)
If YES,
There are such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Am I able to use this particular document to prove the existence of THE Jesus Christians believe in?
If NO,
AT THIS POINT OF TIME, there are no such documents within the time period that show the evidence of someone called Jesus. Based on this fact, I can thus assert that there is no such person, unless proven otherwise by other RELIABLE sources, or the possibility that there is something missing all of us have overlooked.

This is how I interpret the statement, thus in my opinion what Bucky raised still holds logical grounds.
Nope.

The atheist is asking for writings from the actual time of Jesus. Since the atheist is arguing against the existence of Jesus, there can be no actual time of Jesus. It's a simple logical contradiction that I pointed out.

That's all it is.
We both agree that the atheist argues against the existence of Jesus, however this is most likely based on the possibility that the atheist feels that there are no writings from the actual time of Jesus, thus the assertion of the atheist.

Also, whether there is an "actual time of Jesus", it depends of the stance of the person. Yes, in the point of view of the atheist, what you mentioned is logical. HOWEVER, by asking for writings from the actual time of Jesus, the atheist is now considering the OTHER viewpoint, which is that there is such a person called Jesus who existed. By asking for the writings, he hopes to challenge the claim that a person called Jesus existed during that time period by showing that there is a lack of evidence during that time period which documented the existence of said Jesus.

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
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
06-11-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote: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.


Bucky is making the assumption based upon Jesus being a peasant, which is not even mentioned in Tacitus at all. He is adding stuff that doesn't even exist in the text, and then trying to make a point with non existent material.

Firstly, where does he get his evidence of Jesus being a peasant so that he can justify his claim above? This is what I mean by "assertion." He makes assumptions and then expects me to swallow his thesis based entirely on assumptions. and non relevant material.

Secondly, he failed to understand the context of the conversation. The context was about whether or not Tacitus used official sources for his Annals history book, and that is why I pointed out the 6 examples of Tacitus using various Roman sources to source his Annals history book. It has nothing to do with any peasants from Galilee, so what the hell is he talking about?

The conversation was not about peasants, but only to demonstrate the methods by which Tacitus used to find sources for his Annals history book.

How the hell did he not understand 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
06-11-2012, 09:19 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:Then I gave a LONG reference why Paul was unreliable, and explained why Josephus was less than reliable.

You didn't give any references whatsoever, for all you did was make unsubstantiated assertions. If you are going to say something without first supplying some kind of reasoning/ consensus/ evidence, then all you managed to provide was an unsupported opinion.

The follwing is a link back to your post.

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

Nowhere in that post did you even attempt to justify your claims. In fact, you posted links to an off-topic conversation regarding a philosophical discussion about Paul, while failing to understand that I was doing a purely textual analysis.

The object of this thread was regarding textual evidence, and not philosophy. You have the right to your opinion about what you think Paul's mental state was during his time, as does anyone else, but to claim that the written textual evidence is wrong based upon a philosophical view is not unlike a Christian saying I am wrong based upon his theological belief system.

Again, deal with the evidence, and not the philosophy.

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
06-11-2012, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2012 10:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 01:53 PM)Free Wrote:  One of the problems though is your statement of "is consistent with the stories." Now, again it becomes a matter of whether or not those "stories" have any truth to them. If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position.

The problem with this whole "He existed/He didn't exist" fiasco is that the proponents for non existence are forced to accept something that affirms the existence of the man according to all available resources.

If we agree with what the scholars believe, then ... we agree with what the scholars believe.

Our problem is almost impossible. How does anyone prove the non existence of someone if they did not exist? We simply cannot.

In every historicity/myth argument I have seen, those who favor non existence are always using arguments from silence, unsupported assertion, or some improbable explanation to counter the evidence the believers bring.

At the end of the day, the believers cling to their evidence such as Tacitus, Josephus, non canonical texts etc because it IS evidence (doesn't prove anything conclusively though), while the myth argument brings not a shred of good evidence to the table.

I think the argument for a complete myth is quite untenable.

Poster has attempted to weasel out of the conditional/unconditional monumental logic flaw. HE asserted the flaw FOR himslef, and in general, as is clearly stated above. HIS position which HE dug FOR HIMSELF, and NOT for the Christian Forum OP, HE has taken over as assertion for himself, and tried to frame the argument in his own illogical, ridiculous terms, and drag EVERYONE else along with him, down his rabbit hole. He fails to understand the "conditional" nature of the discussion. Poster has clearly and repeatedly OWNED the position as HIS OWN.

This is a forum for adults. For the adults :

The discussion is not a game of semantics. Adults want to know IF there is evidence of a "Jesus" *person* who, IF he existed, existed in ancient Palestine.

There is no firm evidence.

1. The Tacitus evidence is questionable, as he used a title as a name, and misspelled the name as ChrEstus, even while calling "Christians" by their correct name thus drawing into question his knowledge and research, and understanding. There is reason to doubt and question it.
2. The Pauline "evidence" is not reliable as it is a literal interpretation of what, on closer, nuanced inspection, may not hold up. The discussion of the Pauline literature and what it means, and who actually wrote it is a long and involved, and far from simple discussion.
3. The Josephus "evidence" is not reliable, and there is NO consensus that the statement in Chapter 18 is NOT a forgery, and the Chapter 20 reference is to James, and there is no way of knowing who he was actually referring to.

So, for the adult, who does not care about quibbling, and semantics, and winning debates, but just wants to know, sincerely IS there actually any evidence that a man named Jesus really existed. The answer is, there may not be. What there is, is questionable, and the more one looks, the more questionable it becomes. It certainly is not very good evidence.

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
06-11-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:At the end of the day, the believers cling to their evidence such as Tacitus, Josephus, non canonical texts etc because it IS evidence (doesn't prove anything conclusively though), while the myth argument brings not a shred of good evidence to the table.

I think the argument for a complete myth is quite untenable.



Poster has attempted to weasel out of the conditional/unconditional monumental logic flaw.

Really? Firstly, let's see your definition of "conditional/unconditional monumental logic flaw?"

Quote:The discussion is not a game of semantics. Adults want to know IF there is evidence of a "Jesus" *person* who, IF he existed, existed in ancient Palestine.

There is no firm evidence.


Evidence has been supplied. No good argument against that evidence has been supplied. Assertions, arguments from silence, and the use of other logical fallacies do not constitute an argument against. Saying such things as "because Tacitus doesn't list the precise source of his statement regarding Christ, it must be mere hearsay" is not evidence to dispute what was written, it is mere unsupported assertion. Also, saying that Paul meant something else other than what the written words actually say is not evidence, as it merely means a philosophical viewpoint and nothing more.

Making claims against evidence without supporting those claims is not evidence. Using that kind of reasoning, anyone can make any claim they like against anything at all and it would be evidence.

Understand the need to provide evidence to support your assertions, and understand what evidence actually is, and what it is not.

Quote:1. The Tacitus evidence is questionable, as he used a title as a name, thus drawing into question his knowledge and research, and understanding. There is reason to doubt and question it.

He used the title to demonstrate how the Christians got to be called Christians. This is evident in the text. If they has been called "Jesusians," he likely would have used "Jesus."

The title of "Christus" represents a supposed "Messiah," and in Jewish tradition the Messiah would be a King. Tacitus is essentially stating that the Romans, namely, Pontius Pilate, killed a king of the Jewish people. This is hardly a statement about some peasant as you asserted.


Quote:2. The Pauline "evidence" is not reliable as it is a literal interpretation of what, on closer, nuanced inspection, may not hold up.

There is no doubt whatsoever, in the context of the historicity of Jesus, that Paul positively claims the existence of Jesus as a human being. The argument is about whether or not Jesus existed, and Paul makes several positive claims that Jesus did indeed exist.


Quote:3. The Josephus "evidence" is not reliable, and there is NO consensus that the statement in Chapter 18 is NOT a forgery, and the Chapter 20 reference is to James

Since you mentioned consensus, the majority consesnus among world bible scholars and historians is that Josephus' version regarding Jesus being executed by Pilate is a partial interpolation, and not a full-scale forgery.

In regards to Josephus mention of James, it is virtually unanamous amoung world-wide scholars that it is 100% authentic. No good argument has ever been brought against it.

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: