Started By
Message
re: Does anyone actually believe this
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:29 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:29 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Either way, I hope we can still be friendly on this board. I try to never let my emotions and arguing over a disagreed topic cross paths. Hope you do the same.
2
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:31 pm to Stacked
quote:
Either way, I hope we can still be friendly on this board. I try to never let my emotions and arguing over a disagreed topic cross paths. Hope you do the same.
It'll be hard for me to take you seriously in any debate again, but I'll certainly be cordial.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:35 pm to Stacked
I think the problem here is that you didn't believe me when I told you pages ago that I wasn't going to argue with you. It seems from then on you've only been frustrated at me for the lack of bringing forth an argument.
I do to know how I can explain things clearer to you. I do to argue about this sort of thing anymore. Religion is where people find something to hope for and no hope is found from two people arguing points neither is qualified to argue.
Take that however you want. I won't lose sleep over you taking it in a way I wish you hadn't.
I do to know how I can explain things clearer to you. I do to argue about this sort of thing anymore. Religion is where people find something to hope for and no hope is found from two people arguing points neither is qualified to argue.
Take that however you want. I won't lose sleep over you taking it in a way I wish you hadn't.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:39 pm to Stacked
quote:
think the problem here is that you didn't believe me when I told you pages ago that I wasn't going to argue with you.
You're pulling a Sleeping Tiger here (no offense to him) in saying that you haven't been arguing. You've consistently challenged me, and I've responded to the challenge.
This is called an argument.
What you won't have is: Producing evidence.
This is where it comes in that I don't believe you to be intellectually honest.
You are clearly not in search for truth, and clearly have your mind made up beforehand. Which is why I challenged you: What would convince you?
You won't answer that, because you know you're in trouble already regarding facts. This isn't an assumption, and it's not solely an appeal to authority -- but you are in a statistical minority both with laymen and experts. My challenge stands, but you're free to bow out of an argument "you weren't taking place in (
)".This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:39 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
It'll be hard for me to take you seriously in any debate again, but I'll certainly be cordial.
dude, how many times does this have to be said? I don't debate! You're looking for an argument from the wrong kind of person. Im not the droid you are looking for. 
But I'll keep in mind that in any and all future debates, both televised and untelevised, you will have a hard time taking me seriously.
Maybe try not to take yourself so seriously.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:41 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
StrawsDrawnAtRandom
If you've spent anytime on the internet at all, you've all come across this guy's type time and time again. There is no sense arguing or even responding to these threads. He's baiting you into an argument so he can come across as the smartest person in the room only to satisfy his own ego. That being said, I'm sure StrawsDrawn is a great guy.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:43 pm to RedPants
quote:
He's baiting you into an argument so he can come across as the smartest person in the room only to satisfy his own ego.
I've had this argument several times and it has nothing to do with being "smart", it's something I truly believe in.
Unless you believe I'm being insincere in my approach.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:48 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
You're pulling a Sleeping Tiger here
Where has he been lately? We really need him to return and unite the board. You see what happens when he's gone? Chaos! Anarchy!
He's not the conspiratard we like but he's the one we need right now.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:53 pm to Stacked
quote:
I don't debate!
So what have you been doing this whole time?
"Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument."
quote:
Jesus was mentioned in the Works of Josephus, a historian of the time. Whether you believe Jesus is God or not is up to you, but he very much was here and was recorded by non-christians alike as being so.
Here's you, not debating.
quote:
Josephus mentioning Jesus is a "known Christian interpolation?" Care to provide a link to any group of people claiming to know this?
More Stacked, can't be bothered with debate.
quote:
I have the Works of Josephus and I'm aware. For me it's the same as having a Civil War historian today. Were they alive to fight in the war? No, there are civil war buffs and historians who have an accurate assessment of the Civil War because we aren't that far removed from it in history. Josephus was much closer in years to the time Jesus was on earth than any Civil War historian is to the Civil War today. I'm okay that Josephus wasn't one of Jesus' disciples, in fact, I think it adds to his credit much more that he wasn't.
Not making a point here, I'll gather?
quote:
I think historians are sometimes strange, what is it to me though what they decide to write about? I'm just saying that a non-connected source referenced Jesus's existence, which Josephus is and did. What are you getting at? You've admitted he did also. That's all my point was.
quote:
People around here can't even agree on if Sandy Hook was or wasn't a hoax, why would anyone think people would agree on something that happened 2K years ago? I don't assume I'm right about something just because I have an opinion. So why would I argue with other people that they are wrong?
quote:
As for this known forgery that "everyone knows," you've still only quoted wikipedia.
Who is this person not debating? I wonder what his name is?
quote:
Who is we? You realize there's people who don't dismiss the New Testament, right?
I wonder if he has a handle?
quote:-- Klarvin telling you directly that this was a debate.
This thread had real potential before ya'll ruined it with your historicity of Jesus debate. It's not nearly as fun YEC.
quote:--
Are you ready to me yet? I ain't ever gonna quit you.
Is this you not trying to debate?
quote:
So you think that the SECrant and wikipedia is what I will rely on to mold and make changes to my historical beliefs on God from a 5 page thread? If my opinion could be changed that easily I don't deserve to have one at all. I may be wrong, but it most likely will not be because of anything someone does or says on the Off Topic board.
And for the record, Roger Klarven was wrong in his exaggeration. He said "His passage referencing Jesus essentially admits that Jesus was the son if God" That just isn't so. Acknowledging Jesus existed in no way "admits that Jesus was the son of God." A ton of people believe Jesus existed who also think he was NOT the Son of God. The historian Josephus is no different.
For every book cited to your wikipedia copy and past, or your website, there is a book and website directly contrasting your point of view. It is what it is. By existing, I don't believe any of those authors and books mean you're wrong, nor do I believe someone's opinion being cited by wikipedia means I'm wrong. If you think it should convince me otherwise, I'm sorry.
quote:
He STILL believes that, with interpolations omitted, Josephus spoke directly of a man named Jesus that was put to death by Pilate. He's not saying that with interpolations omitted Josephus spoke nothing of Jesus. So what is even your point?
How on Earth can you say you're not debating?
Christ, Stacked.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:53 pm to AGoodTexan
quote:
Most common number I hear thrown around by the bible-thumpers is 6,000 not 4.
Yeah, there is a small group that think 6,000 years, but don't paint all Christians as in that camp.
Most sane (and most are, you just hear about and see the 'over the top' bunch) know that it's not really important HOW old the earth is. What's that got to do with the REAL important message? Nothing.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:54 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
Where has he been lately? We really need him to return and unite the board. You see what happens when he's gone? Chaos! Anarchy!
He's not the conspiratard we like but he's the one we need right now.
I think he's been on sporadically ever since "The Incident", Codenamed Drowsy Feline. I kinda miss the board's mascot, though.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:55 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
He's not the conspiratard we like but he's the one we need right now.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:59 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
Yeah, there is a small group that think 6,000 years, but don't paint all Christians as in that camp.
Most sane (and most are, you just hear about and see the 'over the top' bunch) know that it's not really important HOW old the earth is. What's that got to do with the REAL important message? Nothing.
I think YEC is considered something like 4,000 to 10,500 years or something like that. It's been a long time since my Kent Hovind, VenomFangX days.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:30 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
We have no references until 60 years after his death from an outside source.
I read most of this thread and understand that you have a lot of questions about the chance of Jesus actually existing. I understand that you are going to believe what you want, but I'm curious if you accept Alexander the Great as someone who actually existed or not because as far as I'm aware, most of the historical writings about him come more than 60 years after he reigned.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:39 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
I read most of this thread and understand that you have a lot of questions about the chance of Jesus actually existing. I understand that you are going to believe what you want, but I'm curious if you accept Alexander the Great as someone who actually existed or not because as far as I'm aware, most of the historical writings about him come more than 60 years after he reigned.
The Babylonian Royal Diary is the best evidence posited for Alexander's existence.
There is a contemporary administrative document from Bactria, written in Aramaic, that records the moment of Alexander's arrival in Bactria in pursuit of the main assassin of Darius III, Artaxerxes V or Bessus. Indeed, the same documents record the moment that Bessus reached Bactria too, and as the documents both name him as King Artaxerxes and Bessus we have absolute confirmation about his status as a usurper.
Both of these, as stated, are contemporary (They happened in his time, not 60 years after) and while dating we can put several cities he conquered at the time of about his existence.
We also have contemporary inscriptions on coins with a universal portrait.
So, yes, I have no trouble believing that Alexander was a king who had a few battles here and there. It could have been augmented, but with so much contemporary evidence it'd be impossible to dismiss the majority of his works.
Not to mention the trek toward Asia and all of the cities named after him. It'd be strange to completely fabricate a king, his image, contemporary works and a bunch of cities for literally no reason whatsoever -- and then never mention that it wasn't to be taken literally. (There's a reason why Heracles is not considered a real man.)
So if we're comparing: Contemporary sources vs. Anonymous post-death sources, I'd say Alexander has much more evidence.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:46 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
As I touched on before, as well, is that Alexander's authors are all well-known throughout history. The New Testament, by and large is anonymous as I wrote earlier (when Stacked wasn't debating me).
The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1]
Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1]
Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]
As I said: It'd be damn near impossible to create a guy like Alexander the Great, and there's no motive to do so.
The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1]
Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1]
Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]
As I said: It'd be damn near impossible to create a guy like Alexander the Great, and there's no motive to do so.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:50 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
https://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-alexander/alexander_02.html
https://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arabia/arabia_01.html
EDIT: The second link, specifically, has Alexander in it.
This is the text of the Babylonian contemporary work of Alexander.
Sorry if I'm bombarding you, I really like this stuff.
https://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arabia/arabia_01.html
EDIT: The second link, specifically, has Alexander in it.
This is the text of the Babylonian contemporary work of Alexander.
Sorry if I'm bombarding you, I really like this stuff.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:09 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, the Talmud... all mention Jesus, all non-Christian accounts of his existence.
Yes, all after his death - but the historical evidence is pretty convincing that Jesus existed (exsists).
Yes, all after his death - but the historical evidence is pretty convincing that Jesus existed (exsists).
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:13 pm to WonderWartHawg
...and in 10,000 years historians/theologians will find tons of ancient references to Darth Vader. People will think that we lived in some really scary times.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:15 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
Tacitus
Eh, he wasn't a witness and was just commenting on what he had been told. Furthermore, he also got Pilate's rank incorrect. (Although, I've heard that he could have served as both the correctly ascribed one and the one attributed by Tacitus.) It's also strange because it says that Jesus was in the Roman Census in the Bible, and so he must have been provided a death certificate that still hasn't turned up.
quote:
Flavius Josephus
Mentions him, sure, but how much of his works were doctored? A Jew would never refer to Jesus as "The Messiah" and would have at least mentioned one of his "Great Works", right? There isn't much debate as to The Testimony was interpolated (unless you're not debating, like Stacked) and so I don't consider it a valid source. If it was doctored, it could have been almost completely made up -- especially since the ones who copied it down through time were Christians.
quote:
the Talmud
The Talmud states that Jesus was hung, not crucified which is in direct contradiction to the Biblical Accord. I would not use this source if I were you.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 5:18 pm
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News