Views on Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2010, 06:20 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(08-04-2010 03:15 AM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  ok, martin. I think you don´t understand the point...
We don´t want to proof that jesus was anything, we want you to show us that he existed.
You can compare that to a court. You are unguilty until it´s proofen (in the eyes of the judge) that you are guilty. But you can´t just say that anybody is guilty without any evidences. And you will probably recognize that it doesn´t make any sense to say that anything exists, just because you can´t proof the opposite. Under this circumstances you can pretty much worship anything...
NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus, that there is no allah, no vishnu, no flying spaghetti monster, that there are no oompa loompas and smurfs.

If i don´t get an answer immediatly i guess that they just undoubtedly exist.
I think you will recognize that it isn´t a question of the rules of discussion.
It´s a question of intelligence.

And now excuse my, i have to pray to his noodliness...

Dear flying spaghetti monster, because nobody could disproof you, i came to the conclusion that you exist. Let this unbelievers be touched by your noodly appendages.

In the name of Noodle, Sauce and the Holy Parmesan.

R’Amen

This is your quote "jesus was a carpenter who died 2000 years ago on a cross like million other people did, with a god complex which he had because he was told so from the day of his birth (like every other religous person). If he ever existed or not is not really important to me, but the important thing is, that he was a normal human who just f*cking died 2000 years ago like every other mortal human...
nothing more and nothing less "

And in this post you say "NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus"

You said he was a carpenter who died 2000 years ago and in this post you want me to prove he existed, even though you said he existed in a previous post. You seem to be confused please explain, do you believe he existed or not?
(08-04-2010 05:51 AM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  <attempting to bring the conversation back to its original post subject>

I read the review of two books by Bart Ehrman:

Jesus, Interrupted
Misquoting Jesus

I think I will read these two books, simply because Dr. Ehrman seems to do a good job in identifying the history of the New Testament and its errancy.

There was also a debate I had seen between William Lane Craig (martin's favourite person of all) and Dr. Ehrman. Here's the link:

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

It's over 2 hours, so watch it in parts or only if you have time to watch it in its entirety.

BTW, Dr. Ehrman won that debate hands down! Smile

Stop the press!!! An atheist thinks the debate was won by a person who doesn't believe in the resurrection.

I don't think he watched the whole debate, he said it was over two hours long but the last 18 minutes are blank, it's 1:55.

The debate on the topic was a waste of time. Summarizing, Craig said "the resurrection was the best explanation for the empty tomb" And Ehrman said "Miracles are the least plausible occurrence" I agree with the statement that it is more plausible for anything other than the resurrection, to have happened, IF YOU LEAVE GOD OUT. And since, as Ehrman points out, that historians don't have access to God, why would anyone who leaves God out of the equation think anything different than anything is more plausible than the resurrection?

What this debate does do for the theist, if you believe Ehrman's credentials, is to answer those like Germanatheist007 (BTW love your cars, I have an S550) that believe Jesus did not exist or was a fictional character or is jebus, or is "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" or "I think there was a "Jesus" of sorts". Craig made it clear that Jesus was real, was crucified and was buried. Ehrman did not question that, he questioned what happened to the body after Jesus died. So either find someone with better credentials than Ehrman or we can put the question of Jesus being real, being tried and convicted of blasphemy and treason, to rest once and for all.

Thanks for pointing out the debate to me Super you helped me prove that Jesus was real!
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 01:17 AM
RE: Views on Jesus
(08-04-2010 06:20 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 03:15 AM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  ok, martin. I think you don´t understand the point...
We don´t want to proof that jesus was anything, we want you to show us that he existed.
You can compare that to a court. You are unguilty until it´s proofen (in the eyes of the judge) that you are guilty. But you can´t just say that anybody is guilty without any evidences. And you will probably recognize that it doesn´t make any sense to say that anything exists, just because you can´t proof the opposite. Under this circumstances you can pretty much worship anything...
NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus, that there is no allah, no vishnu, no flying spaghetti monster, that there are no oompa loompas and smurfs.

If i don´t get an answer immediatly i guess that they just undoubtedly exist.
I think you will recognize that it isn´t a question of the rules of discussion.
It´s a question of intelligence.

And now excuse my, i have to pray to his noodliness...

Dear flying spaghetti monster, because nobody could disproof you, i came to the conclusion that you exist. Let this unbelievers be touched by your noodly appendages.

In the name of Noodle, Sauce and the Holy Parmesan.

R’Amen

This is your quote "jesus was a carpenter who died 2000 years ago on a cross like million other people did, with a god complex which he had because he was told so from the day of his birth (like every other religous person). If he ever existed or not is not really important to me, but the important thing is, that he was a normal human who just f*cking died 2000 years ago like every other mortal human...
nothing more and nothing less "

And in this post you say "NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus"

You said he was a carpenter who died 2000 years ago and in this post you want me to prove he existed, even though you said he existed in a previous post. You seem to be confused please explain, do you believe he ...

probably. I don´t know and because of this i want you to proof me that he existed. If he really existed he was a normal human who just f*cking died 2000 years ago like every other mortal human...
nothing more and nothing less

like i said it´s not really important to me. But if you want to debate with us, please finish it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 04:46 AM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
I don't think it will really matter, martin, if I DID produce someone better than Ehrman. At risk of being accused, once again, of using Wikipedia, "[Ehrman] is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."

He considers himself an agnostic (yes, martin, an agnostic...not an atheist, an AG-NO-STIC), converting from Evangelical Christianity.

His studies have concentrated on the New Testament, so 'yes' I WOULD consider him an expert in that area. Far more than Craig himself, and far more than YOU (far more than me, while I'm at it).

But, don't you think it is an interesting question to postulate? Christians believe that Jesus rose to heaven 'bodily'. If that did NOT happen, then what is Christianity about? The man Christ? I don't think so. Ghandi was a good man, by many moral standards, but I don't know of ANY cults centered around his teachings. But, then again, I don't know of any sects that would have used violence to get Ghandi's message through, so maybe this is what was missing...

I will rewatch the video and take notes this time...but I want you, if you have time, to watch OTHER videos with Ehrman speaking his perspective. I think you'll find that he really does know his stuff and, where Craig is biased towards believing there WAS a Jesus, Ehrman breaks it down as to why there may NOT have been one.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 03:50 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 07:40 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  No YOU don't understand the burden of proof, and just because YOU say you do, that does not prove anything. Unless of course you can show me the logic and debate classes you have taken and at what institution, then I will take you at word that I don't understand the burden of proof. It is really simple you said "there was no historical Jesus" I am asking you for proof. I did not make the claim that there was an historical Jesus, you made the claim there wasn't, so prove it, should not be that hard for someone like you.

Okay, I'm done here. This is the same thing that I have debunked over and over and over in multiple threads. I'm not interested in continuing this, as you have proven time and again that nothing I can say will convince you. You are simply incorrect and unwilling to admit it.
For those who need further proof, here is an explanation of the burden of proof - and the fallacy associated with it that martin is committing. And his constant demands that I produce records of the classes I have taken are nothing other than the argument ad hominem fallacy.

He shows you a site with the Ad-hominem fallacy, and it shows he doesn't understand even the easiest fallacy. I did not attack your character, I asked for your credentials so I can take you at your word. Attacking your character would be "Don't believe him he is a gamer" Or like the guy that posted about drinking and strip clubs. "He drinks and goes to strip clubs" I have been divorced ' You could say you can't trust Martin he has been divorced" That is Ad-Hominem, asking to show your credentials is not a fallacy. And you will be asked for your credentials your entire life so get used to it. He quotes Wikipedia, but he didn't read it obviously, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim." He made the claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time.
EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too" He needs to show support for his claim, he has not.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 04:11 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
(09-04-2010 03:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  He shows you a site with the Ad-hominem fallacy, and it shows he doesn't understand even the easiest fallacy. I did not attack your character, I asked for your credentials so I can take you at your word. Attacking your character would be "Don't believe him he is a gamer" Or like the guy that posted about drinking and strip clubs. "He drinks and goes to strip clubs" I have been divorced ' You could say you can't trust Martin he has been divorced" That is Ad-Hominem, asking to show your credentials is not a fallacy.

In this case, yes, it is, as you are using it to insinuate that I am not qualified to make an argument on this subject. That is an attack on my character, which is the ad hominem fallacy. I find it ironic that you accuse me of misunderstanding it while proving in the same paragraph that it is you who lacks understanding.

Quote:And you will be asked for your credentials your entire life so get used to it. He quotes Wikipedia, but he didn't read it obviously, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim." He made the claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time.
EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too" He needs to show support for his claim, he has not.

At this point, I can only think that you are flat-out ignoring my posts. I have posted my support for this claim many times. You denying this in the hope that everyone else here will not notice your duplicity is pathetic.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 12:35 AM
RE: Views on Jesus
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  At this point, I can only think that you are flat-out ignoring my posts.

i´ve got the same feeling. Could you please answer our question sometimes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 12:42 AM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-04-2010 03:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  He shows you a site with the Ad-hominem fallacy, and it shows he doesn't understand even the easiest fallacy. I did not attack your character, I asked for your credentials so I can take you at your word. Attacking your character would be "Don't believe him he is a gamer" Or like the guy that posted about drinking and strip clubs. "He drinks and goes to strip clubs" I have been divorced ' You could say you can't trust Martin he has been divorced" That is Ad-Hominem, asking to show your credentials is not a fallacy.

In this case, yes, it is, as you are using it to insinuate that I am not qualified to make an argument on this subject. That is an attack on my character, which is the ad hominem fallacy. I find it ironic that you accuse me of misunderstanding it while proving in the same paragraph that it is you who lacks understanding.

Quote:And you will be asked for your credentials your entire life so get used to it. He quotes Wikipedia, but he didn't read it obviously, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim." He made the claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time.
EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too" He needs to show support for his claim, he has not.

At this point, I can only think that you are flat-out ignoring my posts. I have posted my support for this claim many times. You denying this in the hope that everyone else here will not notice your duplicity is pathetic.

The only reason why I ignore some of your posts is they are waste of my time to do so. Ad hominem deals with your character, you think that your character is related to your credentials, how do I respond to you when you don't know what character is. This is your Nizkor quote "First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim)" Anybody else want to educate Unbeliever what character is?
(10-04-2010 12:35 AM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  At this point, I can only think that you are flat-out ignoring my posts.

i´ve got the same feeling. Could you please answer our question sometimes?

You said "like i said it´s not really important to me. But if you want to debate with us, please finish it."

Why would I waste my time if it is not important to you?
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 12:55 AM
RE: Views on Jesus
(10-04-2010 12:42 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  You said "like i said it´s not really important to me. But if you want to debate with us, please finish it."

Why would I waste my time if it is not important to you?

because you started a debate and when you avoid an answer, you just show me that you can´t answer the question. And, if so, i have no other opportunity to think that i´ve won...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2010 10:15 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Views on Jesus
(10-04-2010 12:42 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  The only reason why I ignore some of your posts is they are waste of my time to do so.

Ad hominem again.

Quote:Ad hominem deals with your character, you think that your character is related to your credentials, how do I respond to you when you don't know what character is. This is your Nizkor quote "First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim)" Anybody else want to educate Unbeliever what character is?

Note bolded. Try reading what I say next time, okay? And, as long as we're on the subject, what are your credentials in this area?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2010, 05:15 AM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
If anyone's interested in the historicity of Jesus, etc., YouTube user TAYLORX04 has started a new series:

Jesus Has Left The Building - Part 1 (The Bible)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLC3XZ4FR...eature=sub
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: