Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:09 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 08:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The reliability of the site is almost irrelevant, surely it's easy to feather and tar the site itself, but if we're just reserving ourselves to the merits of their overall argument on the one particular question, and this particular case the sources they reference, are decent.

Riiiight...

So, they can be pretty much shite for pretty much most of the things they have put on their pages... but that one glimmer of a gem or an article should have merit because...?

One would think that all the articles would be of the same level of merit. Wouldn't you?

Consider

The special pleading and cherry picking is strong Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 09:33 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:09 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Riiiight...

So, they can be pretty much shite for pretty much most of the things they have put on their pages... but that one glimmer of a gem or an article should have merit because...?

One would think that all the articles would be of the same level of merit. Wouldn't you?

Consider

I guess the question is can a shitty site, on rare occasions offer a gem of an article with some merit? I don't see why not. This particular article avoided trying to justifying supernatural claims, or claims of divinity, and for the most part borrowed arguments made by folks who don't share their particular biases, like atheists scholars and historians like Ehrman.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess the question is can a shitty site, on rare occasions offer a gem of an article with some merit? I don't see why not. This particular article avoided trying to justifying supernatural claims, or claims of divinity, and for the most part borrowed arguments made by folks who don't share their particular biases, like atheists scholars and historians like Ehrman.

But.. if effectively nothing on the site is true... why should any little bit of it be true? Consider

Seriously, how does one go about telling the bull-dust from the.... *waves hands a little aimlessly...* Not-bull-dust? What then allows one to 'measure' how correct anything on the site is?

Surely, if one is referencing something, then the total quality of the things is the measure... Not just one particular piece?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
03-11-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 09:09 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Riiiight...

So, they can be pretty much shite for pretty much most of the things they have put on their pages... but that one glimmer of a gem or an article should have merit because...?

One would think that all the articles would be of the same level of merit. Wouldn't you?

Consider

I guess the question is can a shitty site, on rare occasions offer a gem of an article with some merit? I don't see why not. This particular article avoided trying to justifying supernatural claims, or claims of divinity, and for the most part borrowed arguments made by folks who don't share their particular biases, like atheists scholars and historians like Ehrman.

Of course, the site can potentially offer a gem of an article. Just because they're Christians doesn't mean that they're inherently wrong.

I haven't looked over any of their other articles, but for at least this article, I think they have ignored some pretty important pieces of the puzzel to try to make their case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:41 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Of course, the site can potentially offer a gem of an article. Just because they're Christians doesn't mean that they're inherently wrong.

I haven't looked over any of their other articles, but for at least this article, I think they have ignored some pretty important pieces of the puzzel to try to make their case.

What part do you think they're inherently wrong about, besides their half borrowing of the the reference in the Talmud?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:40 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  But.. if effectively nothing on the site is true... why should any little bit of it be true? Consider

Seriously, how does one go about telling the bull-dust from the.... *waves hands a little aimlessly...* Not-bull-dust? What then allows one to 'measure' how correct anything on the site is?

Surely, if one is referencing something, then the total quality of the things is the measure... Not just one particular piece?

Well the articles used a variety of early sources to draw their inferences from, so we could likely use those sources, and argue as to whether the inferences being drawn by them, are reasonable or not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well the articles used a variety of early sources to draw their inferences from, so we could likely use those sources, and argue as to whether the inferences being drawn by them, are reasonable or not.

So... we may as well ignore the web site and go off and look into the things the site references? Consider

Okay, glad we agree the site is a load of bunk. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
03-11-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 09:41 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Of course, the site can potentially offer a gem of an article. Just because they're Christians doesn't mean that they're inherently wrong.

I haven't looked over any of their other articles, but for at least this article, I think they have ignored some pretty important pieces of the puzzel to try to make their case.

What part do you think they're inherently wrong about, besides their half borrowing of the the reference in the Talmud?

I meant it as a general statement. They're not wrong just because they're Christians. They're wrong because their evidence is faulty.

I actually believe there was a historical figure called Yeshua. I believe this because he's mentioned quite clearly in the Talmud, and the Talmud is a document that I place a lot of trust in.

But the source that they're using, is a 6,000-page document from which they've taken two sentences. The rest of the document contradicts Christianity, Christian theology, and the claims that Christians make about this guy they call Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 01:33 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  This got linked to me in facebook. I don't know this website and never heard of it, nor these sources they are quoting or the names given. What do you people think?

http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-...an-sources

Michael Gleghorn, who composed this rubbish, also believes in the power [sic] of Reiki.

He says: Energy medicine is variously referred to as prana in India, chi in China, and ki in Japan. One form of energy medicine that has been growing in popularity is called Reiki. According to some, rei means "universal," and ki means "life force energy." But the International Center for Reiki Training goes further, declaring that "Rei" is more accurately understood to mean "supernatural knowledge or spiritual consciousness... the wisdom that comes from God or the Higher Self." Thus, according to the Center, "it is the God-consciousness called Rei that guides the life force called Ki in the practice we call Reiki.

I'd therefore totally dismiss any or all of his fanciful claims and misinterpretations of historical writings. And as an acknowledged Christian apologetic, he's hardly likely to support any view that the person of Jesus was merely a mythical construct of the time.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So maybe there was a Jesus. So what. Was he what later believers came to claim about him ?

That was fun. Good find Buckster. Wink

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: