Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 07:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  * ...to both you and me...


That is not evidence.

Thank you for correcting my incorrect usage of the word "I".

With regards to your assertion that the evidence I spoke of is not evidence, you are right, it is not evidence to you nor could it even be evidence for you or any other person that does not know Christ personally because you would have to know Christ personally in order to be privy to it.

However it is evidence for me. Nor can you say it is not evidence for me.
[Image: sting.gif]

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alex_Leonardo's post
01-05-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 07:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  * ...to both you and me...


That is not evidence.

Thank you for correcting my incorrect usage of the word "I".

With regards to your assertion that the evidence I spoke of is not evidence, you are right, it is not evidence to you nor could it even be evidence for you or any other person that does not know Christ personally because you would have to know Christ personally in order to be privy to it.

However it is evidence for me. Nor can you say it is not evidence for me.

Yes, I can say it is not evidence for you. It does not pass the test for 'evidence'.
It is your experience - you choose to interpret it as evidence, but that does not make it evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-05-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally.
The flying spaghetti monster says it is the one true god and Jesus is nothing but a myth. I know this because I know the flying spaghetti monster personally. You, of course, will think this is ridiculous because you don't know the flying spaghetti monster personally. By I have my evidence I tell you... evidence... Drinking Beverage

(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.
Yes, what it tells is that people on the thinking atheist forum do actually think. Well... most of us anyway. Dodgy

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
01-05-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:40 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  On what evidence do you base that assumption?


I fail to see the irony; there is, insofar as I am aware, circumstantial evidence that a man named Yeshua was crucified.
There is no evidence suggestion he was a deity, or even magical but rather an irritating Arab Jew who was put down; that is all we can confirm as we already know that the NT is not a reliable document for historical purposes given the nature of its construction.
Some think he was an open Nazarene-like rebel attempting to instigate revolt, others think he was just a crazy preacher made myth. My money is on the later.

It would be ironic to say "Yeah, the most plausible explanation of Jewsus is that he dun be gawd/son-there-of." but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. Aside from you that is.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.

You cannot know anybody personally that, if he did exist, has died. That sentence in its own shows how any "evidence" could not exist, and also that you need to talk to a professional so you may function better in the real world - free of psychotic thoughts.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
01-05-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Hercules personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Hercules of Argos' existence as a King of Argos in approximately 1260 BC is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Hercules never existed and that He was a total myth.



Have I convinced you of the historical existence of Hercules? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-05-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-04-2014 01:15 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  ---
2. A religious guy of lowly background in the 20s and 30s AD who had a sort of Buddhist outlook and had some followers and then the religion just evolved and his life was embellished with some myths and invented stories. He was crucified and died or maybe just passed out and woke up and maybe went to India. It's all vague and we will never know who he really was.
---

Though I didn't vote, I'd probably go with this more than anything - it's simple and vague enough to pick up a lot of random historical steam.

I think the ensuing embellishments took off on several tangents, depending on any agenda one might glom onto it for. I think many cults probably claimed that sort of "martyred hero" type and fashioned it to whatever their agenda called for. It was also probably a desirable thing for a cult leader to just not be around to answer uncomfortable questions, once people got wise.

Let's just suppose ... I have some information about this so called 'Messiah' fellow ... whatever his name may have been ... Dodgy

You know why he was done away with, right? You know why even his own people - some of his own followers - had to have him disappear... ?

Yep.
He was atheist; his message: there is no message.

Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves ... and several billion others ... for several hundred decades. Drinking Beverage

I'll still probably meet you back here in a couple of thousand years.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Thank you for correcting my incorrect usage of the word "I".

With regards to your assertion that the evidence I spoke of is not evidence, you are right, it is not evidence to you nor could it even be evidence for you or any other person that does not know Christ personally because you would have to know Christ personally in order to be privy to it.

However it is evidence for me. Nor can you say it is not evidence for me.

Yes, I can say it is not evidence for you. It does not pass the test for 'evidence'.
It is your experience - you choose to interpret it as evidence, but that does not make it evidence.

You can say it is not evidence for me in that it you have the ability to type the words or speak them. This is true and I do not contest this. In this sense I can say you are a Christian or that you love Jesus.

However, this was not your point. Your point was to imply that the aforementioned evidence I spoke of is not really evidence at all. Your point is that I have used the wrong word and should have instead used a word like "experience".

Aside from the fact that you presumed to know what I was referring to when I mentioned this evidence, you took your assumption i.e. that this evidence was some sort of experience and then implied that because it was of such a nature that I, (the person claiming it as evidence) cannot truthfully make that claim.

Now, I have heard this line of reasoning from many people who think like you but have yet to have one of them explain to me why this is so without arguing in a circle.

Maybe you can?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 09:57 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The flying spaghetti monster says it is the one true god and Jesus is nothing but a myth. I know this because I know the flying spaghetti monster personally. You, of course, will think this is ridiculous because you don't know the flying spaghetti monster personally.

Actually I would not say it was ridiculous. I would just say it is false. False because I have historical evidence that demonstrates it is false, i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth is not a myth, but rather was a first century Jew who was crucified under Pontius Pilate because of who He claimed to be. So in other words, I would say if you do know this monster personally, you might want to ask him why he tells you lies and makes you look like the stereotypical "free thinking" college student/atheist who uses the worn out FSM parody as if it is some sort of argument terminator.



(01-05-2014 09:57 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Yes, what it tells is that people on the thinking atheist forum do actually think. Well... most of us anyway. Dodgy

Which is more important, to be able to think, and to think...

Or to be able to think correctly and think correctly?

I see a lot of thinking here, but not much "correct thinking".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 10:55 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  You cannot know anybody personally that, if he did exist, has died. That sentence in its own shows how any "evidence" could not exist, and also that you need to talk to a professional so you may function better in the real world - free of psychotic thoughts.

To be charitable I can agree and ask:

So what?

Since I never said I personally knew a dead person I do not see your point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 11:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Hercules personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Hercules of Argos' existence as a King of Argos in approximately 1260 BC is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Hercules never existed and that He was a total myth.



Have I convinced you of the historical existence of Hercules? Drinking Beverage

No because I know Hercules was what is referred to by historians of classical mythology as a "divine hero" and was, according to classical mythology, son of Zeus.

The fact that you liken Hercules, a divine hero in classical mythology, to Jesus of Nazareth who is a historical person is evidence in and of itself that you are at best, mistaken regarding the subject matter which you have decided to speak on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: