Started By
Message
re: Does anyone actually believe this
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:27 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:27 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Hung on a cross. Don't think they 'hung' people as in the hanging we think of.
But, matters not, sounds like you are more interested in finding evidence He didn't exist than evidence that He did.
But, matters not, sounds like you are more interested in finding evidence He didn't exist than evidence that He did.
1
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:35 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:Via wiki's page on the historicity of Jesus. You can check out the sources, there is universal agreement among secular historians that Jesus existed.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30]
Y'all spent 10 pages debating something that's not up for debate. If I got on here and said the ocean wasn't salty, would you argue this long? Or would you just accept that I'm a stubborn ignoramus/troll and move on?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:43 pm to genro
quote:
Via wiki's page on the historicity of Jesus. You can check out the sources, there is universal agreement among secular historians that Jesus existed.
You're right, universal expert agreement has always been respected.
Genro, I seem remember you in a discussion about climate change. Am I remembering correctly?
quote:
Y'all spent 10 pages debating something that's not up for debate. If I got on here and said the ocean wasn't salty, would you argue this long? Or would you just accept that I'm a stubborn ignoramus/troll and move on?
There's a growing group of critics that are starting to come out right now -- Richard Carrier is usually the flag bearer for the contemporary movement and has just produced a peer reviewed, cited book on the evidence for Jesus or lack thereof.
He recently demolished Ehrman, and is gaining steam as we speak.
If you're going to cite experts, you had better prepare to bring up their works.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:44 pm to genro
These threads are SDAR Specials 
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:44 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
These threads are SDAR Specials
My body is ready. T-T
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:49 pm to genro
StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Religion threads and white privilege threads are where he posts up.
And I ain't interested in going around the mulberry bush right now, Straws
You do you, breh
Religion threads and white privilege threads are where he posts up.
And I ain't interested in going around the mulberry bush right now, Straws
You do you, breh
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:52 pm to genro
Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] -- is literally what they agree on.
However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[18][19] -- Similarly, they closed the book very early and said "yerp he was there", without anyone really testing it with any real gusto. There needs to be more talk regarding the subject, as most ancient historians and theologians also happen to be Christians. The few Atheists that have said Jesus existed or was a person have been destroyed recently, as I said earlier: Ehrman vs. Carrier.
https://vridar.org/2012/04/28/the-facts-of-the-matter-carrier-8-ehrman-1-my-own-review-part-2/
This is a fantastic scholarly summation of the Ehrman/Carrier debate that turned me.
However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[18][19] -- Similarly, they closed the book very early and said "yerp he was there", without anyone really testing it with any real gusto. There needs to be more talk regarding the subject, as most ancient historians and theologians also happen to be Christians. The few Atheists that have said Jesus existed or was a person have been destroyed recently, as I said earlier: Ehrman vs. Carrier.
https://vridar.org/2012/04/28/the-facts-of-the-matter-carrier-8-ehrman-1-my-own-review-part-2/
This is a fantastic scholarly summation of the Ehrman/Carrier debate that turned me.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 6:54 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Religion threads and white privilege threads are where he posts up.
And I ain't interested in going around the mulberry bush right now, Straws
You do you, breh
I can say with deep certainty that I probably research these two topics specifically more than most people. You have to admit that I at least make a good argument.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:02 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:What argument? You're using the same appeal to authority. Neither of us are historians, but with basic logic and understanding of how deductions and consensuses are formed, we can feel confident in something that virtually all qualified historians agree on.
You have to admit that I at least make a good argument.
I'll gladly read the transcript or watch the debate but even in what you quoted I can detect the petty contrarian antireligious attitude. You ignore this, and cling to this one fringe opposition movement, and ignore the overwhelming consensus. Confirmation bias.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:08 pm to genro
quote:
What argument? You're using the same appeal to authority.
Oh my Goodness no I'm not. This is the strangest thing you've said so far. An appeal to authority (an incorrect one) is when you simply say: The authority says so, I believe so.
I've given plenty of reason why I believe the authority on one account, and am in the minority in another. Plenty.
quote:
Neither of us are historians, but with basic logic and understanding of how deductions and consensuses are formed, we can feel confident in something that virtually all qualified historians agree on.
Neither of us are shoemakers, yet both of us know whether or not our shoes fit. Such is the same with common men about controversial issues.
quote:
I'll gladly read the transcript or watch the debate but even in what you quoted I can detect the petty contrarian antireligious attitude. You ignore this, and cling to this one fringe opposition movement, and ignore the overwhelming consensus. Confirmation bias.
The transcript is a good starting point as to why the shift has changed considerably. And if you look in any other thread I don't bash Christians at all. I just don't think Jesus was anywhere near historical as historians (New Testament) make him out to be. Almost nothing is universal except his crucifixion and baptism. The rest is muddled.
And I've given adequate reason on why not to believe the New Testament. (Anonymous authorship, interpolation.) And why not to believe the references to Jesus by Tacitus (never actually mentioned Jesus specifically, but Christus in which Christians hailed), Josephus (major interpolations made by Christians, who were the only ones who possessed and kept his piece in tact) Pliny (who never referenced Jesus, only the growing movement).
To say that I have a confirmation bias and an appeal to authority when I've given so much evidence is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:30 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:I think I like this.
Neither of us are shoemakers, yet both of us know whether or not our shoes fit. Such is the same with common men about controversial issues.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 7:41 pm to genro
quote:
I think I like this.
Unfortunately it comes from Hegel.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:27 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:The crux of your argument is what you perceive to be a lack of evidence. You haven't presented any evidence.
To say that I have a confirmation bias and an appeal to authority when I've given so much evidence is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
You can't prove that Jesus didn't exist any better than any Christian here could prove to you that he did exist. I guess whether or not you believe he existed depends on whom you think the burden of proof lies. I don't see why the burden of proof would lie on those whom argue that he did exist when it lies on the opposite side of the argument for other historical figures, and no, I don't buy your argument that people had reason to invent Jesus any more than I'd buy a hypothetical argument that people had reason to invent Alexander the Great.
With the lack of evidence either way, people will believe what they want to believe. These arguments are incredibly pointless because no one is going to change anyone else's mind. Those who believe that he did exist and was the Messiah aren't doing so out of tangible evidence; they're doing it out of faith. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:37 pm to GatorsGators
One thing is for certain, when we all pass away, we will all know for certain.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:54 pm to GatorsGators
quote:
The crux of your argument is what you perceive to be a lack of evidence. You haven't presented any evidence.
You clearly haven't followed the conversation, then. Or have significant problems with comprehension.
quote:
You can't prove that Jesus didn't exist any better than any Christian here could prove to you that he did exist.
Or as I said before: I'm an agnostic in regards to Jesus' existence. In the classical sense of "It can't be known.", it can be assumed, but to say emphatically "the guy known as Jesus who performed all of the miracles and traveled from X, Y and Z was a real person" I think is a mighty stretch.
quote:
I don't see why the burden of proof would lie on those whom argue that he did exist when it lies on the opposite side of the argument for other historical figures, and no, I don't buy your argument that people had reason to invent Jesus any more than I'd buy a hypothetical argument that people had reason to invent Alexander the Great.
Really, you can't see a reason to invent Jesus? A messiah, your savior, everyone's savior, who tells certain people that they need to live a certain lifestyle to be accepted into heaven?
You really can't believe someone would fabricate that?
And I've given tons of evidence for Alexander the Great being a historical figure.
quote:
With the lack of evidence either way, people will believe what they want to believe.
If you have a lack of evidence, your first position or premise should be: It's true.
It should be like a jury -- innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some proof, then it can't be told to be certain. (And I recognize that historians don't look at things in certainty, but there are other historical figures with tons more evidence before and after Jesus, I just think it's bizarre that people are certain.)
quote:
Those who believe that he did exist and was the Messiah aren't doing so out of tangible evidence; they're doing it out of faith. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Ahhh, there's a bit of a problem with that. Faith is not evidence, faith is belief. I demand evidence, you can faith it up all you want, but that's a very poor argument standing point -- I also don't think you're representative of everyone in here saying that it's faith alone.
I'm certain there are people in this thread that think there is evidence -- we're just discussing as to the what's and why's. But I have no doubt that they're not going on it as a matter of absolute faith. (Negating the Basal Assumptions.)
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:56 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
One thing is for certain, when we all pass away, we will all know for certain.
When I say this, I say it as an Atheist but: I hope there is an afterlife. I hope this isn't the end, and that there is something more to this life.
Equally, however, I hope that if there is a creator or God, that it is in fact merciful and doesn't possess human traits like vengeance or love. If I was going to create a God, it'd be an unconditionally empathetic observer with infinite understanding as to why people do things and why they don't.
It's a long shot, but it's something I hope for.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:33 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Ah shite, man. You just opened a can of worms. There's tons of people here that believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old in spite of trees being older than that.
These folks are becoming smaller in number
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:41 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I'm an agnostic in regards to Jesus' existence. In the classical sense of "It can't be known.", it can be assumed, but to say emphatically "the guy known as Jesus who performed all of the miracles and traveled from X, Y and Z was a real person" I think is a mighty stretch.
I guess I misunderstood some of the things you said earlier. If you choose to not believe Jesus did some of the things people said he did or even that he existed that's fine, but I thought you were saying without a doubt in your mind that Jesus was not a real person even though I believe most historians would disagree with you. I know I wouldn't be able to change your mind on anything regarding Jesus on this board, and probably not in person either, but I was originally questioning how you could say without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus wasn't real. Sorry for misinterpreting that.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:49 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
I guess I misunderstood some of the things you said earlier. If you choose to not believe Jesus did some of the things people said he did or even that he existed that's fine, but I thought you were saying without a doubt in your mind that Jesus was not a real person even though I believe most historians would disagree with you. I know I wouldn't be able to change your mind on anything regarding Jesus on this board, and probably not in person either, but I was originally questioning how you could say without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus wasn't real. Sorry for misinterpreting that.
In a sense I am saying that, but in another I'm not.
If "Jesus" fits about 5% of the Biblical narrative, can we really say that they were the same person? That's where I have trouble. Historians only have universal ascent in that there was a guy who was baptized and martyred, and their evidence is Josephus (debunked, majorly debunked) and The New Testament which is almost entirely authored anonymously.
That's shaky to say the least, and not good enough for me -- but that doesn't mean that there can't be better evidence discovered.
Page 12 of 13
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News