Usual introductions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2012, 06:03 PM
RE: Usual introductions
Hi again,
For reference, there are 4 kinds of evidence / argument that tend to be pilloried and vilified ...
Proof by Faith
Proof by Authority
Proof by Revelation
Proof by Tradition
(aka FART or proof by hot air).

Faith and tradition are usually accepted here if they are stated as personal desires but are not accepted as evidence. Revelation = go get help / medication. Authority = grow some balls.

Just sayin'

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
06-08-2012, 11:55 AM
RE: Usual introductions
(05-08-2012 03:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Greetings.

When you post your "evidence", you will have to agree, that in order to actually be consistent, that there is, honestly, seriously, as much "evidence" the the Salem Mass. women who were burned at the stake, actually really were witches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xv_Iklb1V4

Also, check out the "lying for Jesus" link. The early fathers agreed that's what they did, and it was what they were up to. They admitted it, multiple places, multiple times.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

Unfortunately, the interpretation of the resurrection event, by the followers, is only one small problem, among many.

Except you won't find many (if any) ancient historians who dispute his existence. Classic historian Professor Graeme Clark of the Australian National University has gone on record as saying;

"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply over-whelming" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fact...=fullpage)

Richard Dawkins conceded in a debate with John Lennox that a case could be made for Jesus's existence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw)

Other videos from historians/professors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbFbJrr1-bY
https://publicchristianity.org/library/c...-the-bible - Professor Craig Blomberg (I recommend this one)

There's no point having a discussion about the resurrection if we're still stuck at whether he even existed. From everything I've read, this is simply not something that is disputed by historians studying the period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 12:13 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 11:55 AM)Grazer501 Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 03:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Greetings.

When you post your "evidence", you will have to agree, that in order to actually be consistent, that there is, honestly, seriously, as much "evidence" the the Salem Mass. women who were burned at the stake, actually really were witches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xv_Iklb1V4

Also, check out the "lying for Jesus" link. The early fathers agreed that's what they did, and it was what they were up to. They admitted it, multiple places, multiple times.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

Unfortunately, the interpretation of the resurrection event, by the followers, is only one small problem, among many.

Except you won't find many (if any) ancient historians who dispute his existence. Classic historian Professor Graeme Clark of the Australian National University has gone on record as saying;

"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply over-whelming" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fact...=fullpage)

Richard Dawkins conceded in a debate with John Lennox that a case could be made for Jesus's existence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw)

Other videos from historians/professors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbFbJrr1-bY
https://publicchristianity.org/library/c...-the-bible - Professor Craig Blomberg (I recommend this one)

There's no point having a discussion about the resurrection if we're still stuck at whether he even existed. From everything I've read, this is simply not something that is disputed by historians studying the period.

Just because Richard Dawkins said a case could be made, doesn't mean it WAS made.

I have no problem with a historical Jesus, you just need to prove the God-Jesus

[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
06-08-2012, 12:15 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 12:13 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I have no problem with a historical Jesus, you just need to prove the God-Jesus
I tend to disagree. All he needs to prove is that Jesus resurrected. Whether he was god or not is irrelevant for this argument.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 12:23 PM
RE: Usual introductions
Grazier,

Here's a well written piece that refutes the existence of a historical Jesus.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

My take on it is much simpler though. The hearsay argument is enough. There is no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and therefore the only evidence for his existence is hearsay. Hearsay, as any intellectually honest person will agree, is poor evidence if it can even be considered evidence at all.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
06-08-2012, 12:54 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 12:15 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 12:13 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I have no problem with a historical Jesus, you just need to prove the God-Jesus
I tend to disagree. All he needs to prove is that Jesus resurrected. Whether he was god or not is irrelevant for this argument.

But, really, the evidence for the existence of the character described in the Bible is pretty thin.

But let's stipulate that there was a preacher named Jesus upon whom the myths were based. Still no proof of resurrection.

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
06-08-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 12:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  But let's stipulate that there was a preacher named Jesus upon whom the myths were based. Still no proof of resurrection.
The Bible! Hobo

Seriously though, I couldn't find any references to the resurrection outside of the Bible, so what evidence could he possibly bring forth? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 01:06 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 12:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 12:15 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I tend to disagree. All he needs to prove is that Jesus resurrected. Whether he was god or not is irrelevant for this argument.

But, really, the evidence for the existence of the character described in the Bible is pretty thin.

But let's stipulate that there was a preacher named Jesus upon whom the myths were based. Still no proof of resurrection.

There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What more do you need? Pictures? DNA?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 01:06 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 12:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  But, really, the evidence for the existence of the character described in the Bible is pretty thin.

But let's stipulate that there was a preacher named Jesus upon whom the myths were based. Still no proof of resurrection.

There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What more do you need? Pictures? DNA?

All of which were only documented in the Bible.Tongue

[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
06-08-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(06-08-2012 01:08 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 01:06 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What more do you need? Pictures? DNA?

All of which were only documented in the Bible.Tongue

Never mind.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: