Informational Deep Into Christianity

Dark Angel

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
That's what he said. Just replace "man of judea" with "jesus" and your claims are identical. Sounds like you are just trying to argue for sake of argument and it's not going anywhere.
no that is not what he said, and there is no argument about this. the scholars agree that Christ existed as an historical figure and that a major part of the scriptures was directly written by contemporaries. thus puns the caliber of (if he existed) and claims that no scripture has been written by a contemporary are idiotic and retarded, and the argument should have stopped right at the point where the scholars perspective is presented, and your friend should have simply corrected his statement instead of desperately fleeing to new arguments, some of which are equally faulty.

Jesus did not exist is not the same as Jesus existed but the extraordinary part of his life cannot be validated by scholars.
the scripture was not written by contemporaries of Jesus is not the same as Paul never met Christ before his crucifixion.

so correct your information and if you want to discuss this subject use accurate and precise terms and definitions. period.
Brownian motion is a phenomena that nobody could explain for almost a hundred years, yet easy to reproduce and verify. That's not "simple", but quite extraordinary. If we saw people walking on water every day and could reproduce it with same ease as brownian motion, and only explanation was divine intervention, then you bet that would give credence to the idea that Jesus walked on water as well.
it does not matter, brownian motion is a very simple evidence to a very extraordinary notion. so is galileo dropping two objects from the leaning tower of pisa towards the discovery of how gravity acts similarly on objects of different masses, so is the discovery of density among many other things. all of these were accompanied with very simple evidences. the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is simply a catchy smoke screen. the reality is that there is some ordinary claims might require extraordinary evidence, while some extraordinary claims might simply have very ordinary evidence, and while some ordinary claims might possess no evidence and are not provable at all, all while being held true.

so stop parroting and propagating such useless catch phrases otherwise you will be doing truth in all its dimensions a great disservice.
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • R

    ruins

    Member
    By all means, enlighten us and explain your own interpretation of these verses. I’ve given you my interpretation, the verses clearly say women are subjects of their husbands and they are to obey.

    Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.



    You didn’t provide your interpretation of this verse 1 Timothy 6:1, certainly seems consistent with Luke 12.
    Timothy is a pseudoepigrapha written by a man who never met Jesus (if he actually existed). It may be plagiarised from Luke 12 who was also written anonymously.

    Apart from that, if you find inconsistencies in the books of the bible attributed to Paul, it’s because Paul didn’t write all of them. 1 Timothy is in fact pseudepigraphical…
    That is what I told you previously. You refused to acknowledge that.
    Which begs the question, how can you follow a religion rooted in a holy book full of falsely attributed works? In other words, the authors of the New Testament are liars, and if they lie about one thing… You can figure out the rest for yourself...
    The authors of the new Testament (if they actually existed, we have no contemporary evidence of them), had not read Hitchens. But, you of all people should understand how their lies can be believed - you believed them for years during your Christian devotion.

    And what is the meaning of this parable. Be good and obedient like a slave is to his master, and you will be rewarded. If you are disobedient, you will end up in hell. That is condoning slavery and in total agreement with 1 Timothy 6:1. Try quoting the whole passage here, it gets worse. The opening verses of Luke 12 start with a bunch of threats and warnings to fear the Almighty who can send you to hell for an eternity.
    Matthew 13:42 "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    You fail to understand the "crushing majority" you speak of don’t recognize your Christ as existing. They simply recognize some man from Judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on. Ironically, the same source you quoted from says:

    Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus
    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[25]

    What do you suppose these mythic accounts are?. Take away the nativity, miracles, resurrection… and you end up with a mere mortal in Judea who made some noise and was summarily executed. The source you posted has proved quite inconvenient for you as it supports my position.
    Some say that the execution of Giordano Bruno was a myth. Did Giordano believe in a mortal in Judea or in the lie of the Bible?




    Are you telling us that a man from ancient Judea manipulated matter to walk on water? Where’s the evidence for this, or could it be just blind faith? Either such an extraordinary event of an ancient man walking on water is blind faith, or you have evidence for it. If you have it, why not share it here. Otherwise, why not be honest and just admit it's blind faith.
    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Theists are so thick, the do not get that. Did you believe in the extraordinary claim of walking on water when you were a devout Christian? Can you walk us through on how you debunked it when you acquire the knowledge of all popes and bishops combined? Also, did this include the knowledge of all popes and bishops across Christian denominations or only specific denominations? Do you happen to have acquired anything from Mormons?
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Active Member
    no, they do not "simply recognize some man from judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on". that's how morons understand that text.

    the note simply simply points out that the majority of scholars are able to validate that Jesus as a historical figure existed indeed, without being able to validate or invalidate, or without addressing, the miraculous accounts of his life.

    the historical sources indicate that Christ did indeed exist. it stops there. it neither validates nor invalidates the accounts in the scripture. period.

    I quote again from your own source:

    Wikipedia -- Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

    What is Jesus without his miracles, nativity, resurrection...? An ordinary mere mortal. The mythic god figure known as Christ (the anointed one) is a figment of your imagination as is your "crushing majority" of scholars... Your own source supports my position that a certain man from Judea existed and that he was a mere mortal, the rest is myth. No point in being upset at me, it was you who went to this source and found that the 'crushing majority' was just part of your catholic indoctrination.

    you need help dude. zero ability to understand what is written.

    i was explaining how the amazing and extraordinary particle and atomic theory was proven with simple pollen jumping erratically on the water's surface in a closed environment, i was telling you how einstein quantified the simple brownian motion to prove that matter is indeed made out of particles, and how the sentence you keep parroting about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence holds absolutely no meaning and no credibility.

    but hey, oh boy, how twisted you have shown your mind is with these conclusions of yours, you have to stop the q-tip when you feel resistance dude. manipulated matter to walk on water 2al :lol:
    I hope we can agree that there's nothing simple about walking on water, otherwise everyone would be doing it. Now, let’s get back to what you have stated and not backed up. Where is your evidence that Jesus walked on water? Nevermind extraordinary evidence, just where’s the simple evidence that a man from ancient Judea walked on water 2,000 years ago? If you have none, then I submit to you that your beliefs are based on blind faith and no more convincing than the tooth fairy.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Active Member
    I already made it clear that the interpretation in question, which you are supposed to help me tackle and invalidate, is the official mainstream one (mainstream Christianity). The burden of proof thus falls upon you to validate your claims or your counter interpretation, against the existing, mainstream, official one. Merely saying and repeating that the verses you are quoting sufficiently validate your claims or your counter-interpretation or invalidate the existing interpretation, is obviously not enough, to say the least, by any academic or objective standard, especially that the existing interpretation in question does actually involve those very verses you are quoting (or actually quote-mining) and adopting as an invalidation in-themselves. What you therefore need to do is demonstrate against the existing opposing interpretation, how exactly your claim or your counter-interpretation, rather than the existing opposing one, is coherently supported by, or follows from, the texts you are quoting.

    In other words, if what we mean by 'subjugation of women' and 'slavery' is the act or fact of forcing, or bringing by force, someone or something under our domination or control, then you will need to demonstrate that that act or fact follows from the texts you are quoting (or quote-mining), that is, you will need to demonstrate that the texts in question instruct or encourage people to subjugate one another, and/or that the texts do not oppose subjugating one another. However, what I am realizing so far (when doing the very least, in response to what you are quoting and how you are doing it, which is putting back Peter's quote in its passage (1 peter 3), and taking Paul's message whole into consideration which I very summarily hinted at in my previous reply) is that these texts do in fact amount to the opposite of what you are claiming, that is, what follows from the texts you are misquoting (now and before, in this thread or elsewhere, in this regard) is a call to all, men and woman, slaves and masters, jews and non-jews, for a peaceful and deeply rooted (i.e. indirect) opposition to subjugation via love, self-sacrifice, and endurance. If this is indeed what follows, and as I've pointed out to you earlier that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, then you will need to further demonstrate how such opposition amounts to espousing slavery, or amounts to not opposing it, or better still, amounts to not being the best and only (or the necessary and possibly sufficient) method of opposing and eradicating it (this is actually the Christian claim).

    Inconsistencies, too, need to be pointed out and demonstrated. The same person opposing slavery and opposing opposing-it at the same time or in his message or in his ministry, is one example of a true inconsistency, a contradiction, which will need to be demonstrated to be so. Otherwise, the claimed inconsistency might only be apparently so, and in reality a complementarity.

    Using images of slaves in a parable does not, as a matter of literary principle, directly amount to espousing slavery, that's a given. You will have to demonstrate it by validly interpreting the parable. It could even be that said images are being used as an instrument to effectively deliver to a specific audience (which, in our case, is humanity in its totality; then, now and ever, with the assumption about future people having what's required to acknowledge that) what would amount to opposing slavery. For example, if I said in a speech "I will be coming as a thief to a certain place", that is, unexpectedly, can we reasonably conclude from this, that I espouse theft or that I'm thinking of stealing something? or that 'acting unexpectedly or swiftly' espouses theft? How, then, much more absurd would it be to draw this conclusion, when, in this very same speech, I'm indirectly condemning theft, and that sits in harmony with my character, ideology, and track record? Because ironically that's exactly what appears to be the case with the parable you are (mis)quoting.

    Luke [12:35–48] (The passage of the parable), source: scripture ,

    quote:

    Vigilant and Faithful Servants.*

    35 “Gird your loins and light your lamps

    36 and be like servants who await their master’s return from a wedding, ready to open immediately when he comes and knocks.

    37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds vigilant on his arrival. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself, have them recline at table, and proceed to wait on them.

    38 And should he come in the second or third watch and find them prepared in this way, blessed are those servants.

    39 Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour when the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.

    40 You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.”

    41 Then Peter said, “Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?”

    42 And the Lord replied, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute [the] food allowance at the proper time?

    43 Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so.

    44 Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property.

    45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’* and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk,

    46 then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful.

    47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;

    48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

    * [12:3548] This collection of sayings relates to Luke’s understanding of the end time and the return of Jesus. Luke emphasizes for his readers the importance of being faithful to the instructions of Jesus in the period before the parousia.

    end-of-quote.

    What you will therefore need to do in this regard, is demonstrate that espousing slavery does follow from this parable (at the very least), that is, that
    a) the parable is not about justice (judgment day) and warnings against the danger and consequence of our actions, and/or
    b) how [justice (judgment day) and warnings against the danger and consequence of our actions] espouses slavery.

    -------------

    I hope you will help me respond to all that without appearing a fool and/or a liar to them
    Your personalized philosophical constructs mean nothing here. If a scripture says beat your slaves for disobedience and equates following god to a slave following his master, it’s not my responsibility to back my statements up since I didn’t make them. I simply quoted the bible. Also, don’t blame me that the New Testament holds the same views on women as Islam.

    Lastly, what’s your view on the New Testament being riddled with pseudepigraphical material. If an author in the New Testament lies about his identity and pretends to be someone else, what other lies is he telling?
     
    Last edited:
    L

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    The word myth has a specific scholarly meaning "traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". In the academic sphere, when used by historians, it doesn't carry the popular negative connotation you casual people would want to attribute to it. The historian's task is mainly to gather and establish historical data concerning a certain item or event, the task of interpreting or explanation said data draws upon a wide set of different areas of expertise in addition to the historical; from the philosophical/rational, to the theological, to the archaeological, to the medical, etc ...

    When we say Christ is real we mean Christ indeed as Christ is real, based on historical data. Your task is therefore to ask for and tackle the historical data in support of our claim in order to establish and validly support, via argumentation/interpretation/explanation, your counter claim that Christ as Christ whom we proclaim is not real. You can start with banging your head against this:

    12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
    Ok. First, appealing to "scholars" and unnamed scholars at that is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. The opinions of christian believers apologists (whom most of these alleged scholars probably are) is not a convincing argument.

    Second, Habermas claims that there are skeptics among these scholars. I find that very hard to believe because he lists number 4, "the tomb was empty" as the most contested argument. But the list also includes a claim that "James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus". So are you saying that the scholars are more skeptical of the empty tomb, than about a resurrected Jesus? That's not believable at all.

    As for the alleged "facts" themselves:

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
    2. He was buried.
    3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
    4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
    5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
    6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
    7. The resurrection was the central message.
    8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
    9. The Church was born and grew.
    10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
    11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
    12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

    source: 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas
    Ok, let's say there was "a man from Judea" who was crucified and had disciples, which seems reasonable enough (I'm not a Jesus mythicists and it doesn't seem like Dynamite Joe is either). So 1-3 could be true. Number 4 is probably false, given the discrepancies in the gospels, but hypothetically it could be true if the disciples stole the body, or simply didn't know where he was buried. But most likely the empty tomb is fiction.

    Nobody can attest to the "experiences" of disciples, maybe they thought they saw Jesus, maybe that was made up afterwards. From the gospels there is the story of Mary Magdalene mistaking a gardener for Jesus. That I find believable. Mary tells the others he saw a gardener, and the disciples invent the story that he was Jesus, and then make up more stories to match.

    As for 6, that reeks of propaganda. Jesus's own discples are the last people whom you could call "doubters".

    7-10 describe beginnings of the cult of Jesus after his death. This is just another variant of "a man from Judea". We know such cult existed and obviously it had to come from somewhere and grow around the next century or so.

    Fact 11 is supernatural, and has no basis in reality.

    Fact 12 about Paul's conversion is a typical conversion story. "First I was a skeptic, blah blah" is just meant to appeal to other people the Christians converted. We have no idea what Paul's religious beliefs were prior to his conversion, and that isn't really relevant. People convert to other religions all the time and there is nothing remarkable about that.

    Inherently flawed and very embarrassing this 'potato claim requires potato evidence' is, when held as an axiom of science and parroted up and down as such, let it rest.
    Your failed analogy shows you don't understand the concept. "Extraordinary evidence" doesn't mean just qualitatively different kind of evidence. It could be simply quantity of "ordinary" evidence. So if someone saw brownian motion happen just once but nobody else had seen it, and we'd have to rely on the Brown's word in it, we would call that "ordinary", but many people being able to reproduce the results over and over again would make the evidence "extraordinary". Also remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I quote again from your own source:

    Wikipedia -- Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

    What is Jesus without his miracles, nativity, resurrection...? An ordinary mere mortal. The mythic god figure known as Christ (the anointed one) is a figment of your imagination as is your "crushing majority" of scholars... Your own source supports my position that a certain man from Judea existed and that he was a mere mortal, the rest is myth. No point in being upset at me, it was you who went to this source and found that the 'crushing majority' was just part of your catholic indoctrination.
    impressive how thick minded you can be. let me spell it out for you. it is impressive nevertheless how you can regurgitate that same erroneous point over and over and over again. wow.

    the majority of scholars agree and converge on the fact that Jesus existed, including atheist scholars. if these atheist scholars believed in the miracles of Jesus they would not be atheists now would they? is it that difficult to grasp? do you understand what the word "disputed" means and why it was used in the text you have quoted? and please stop quoting that paragraph, what are you 2 years old?

    no matter how many times you quote that same paragraph, color it, and regurgitate it is not going to change anything. you were shedding doubts on the existence of Jesus, Jesus it turns out is real, in accordance with most scholars. then you fled from one thing to the next, and now you are stuck on parroting and reparroting, seemingly unable to push beyond some mental handicap that you crushed into; as if we this the first time the world discovers that the divinity of Christ is disputed, even among scholars. bhannik 3ala hal iktishef el 3azim

    I hope we can agree that there's nothing simple about walking on water, otherwise everyone would be doing it. Now, let’s get back to what you have stated and not backed up. Where is your evidence that Jesus walked on water? Nevermind extraordinary evidence, just where’s the simple evidence that a man from ancient Judea walked on water 2,000 years ago? If you have none, then I submit to you that your beliefs are based on blind faith and no more convincing than the tooth fairy.
    oh the silliness. what kind of evidence do you want? you want the footage from the ATM camera facing the beach? or do you want Christ's footprints floating on top of the water? could you ever, and i mean ever, think of anything sillier to parrot? and i know you are parroting because you are incapable of coming up even with such silliness on your own. there is nothing original about you, except your uncanny ability to reiterate the same point in the same way to death.

    what is even sillier than asking for "evidence" in such a context is the petty perception you have of God. in your mind you think that walking on water is the making or breaking of divinity. in reality it is meaningless in the context of overpowering nature, and it is not about the display of supernatural ability either. but that is a pretty different topic, inaccessible while you still get the ABCs wrong.
     
    Last edited:
    L

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    no that is not what he said, and there is no argument about this.
    Dynamite Joe can address that himself. I still don't see any difference between your argument and his. You both say that there was some historical figure who could be called "Christ" or "Jesus" or "a man from Judea" (what he's called is irrelevant to the argument) and that historicity of the supernatural aspects of his life is not validated by the scholars.

    it does not matter, brownian motion is a very simple evidence to a very extraordinary notion. so is galileo dropping two objects from the leaning tower of pisa towards the discovery of how gravity acts similarly on objects of different masses, so is the discovery of density among many other things. all of these were accompanied with very simple evidences. the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is simply a catchy smoke screen. the reality is that there is some ordinary claims might require extraordinary evidence, while some extraordinary claims might simply have very ordinary evidence, and while some ordinary claims might possess no evidence and are not provable at all, all while being held true.
    You still don't understand what the "extraordinary evidence" means. That every object falls at the same speed if their air resistance is the same everywhere, every time, regardless of what the objects are made of, without exception, is quite extraordinary.

    From current science, there is an example of the EM drive. Basically, some laboratories are claiming that firing microwaves inside a closed cylinder can make that cylinder move and it acts as a reactionless drive. This is an extraordinary claim because if true, it would contradict basic physics as we know it. On the other hand, there is an ordinary claim that the EM drive experiments are flawed, and there is some reaction (for example, infrared radiation or thermal expansion or whatever) that explains the phenomenon. The burden of proof for the extraordinary claim is considerably higher than the ordinary claim, so scientists are perfecting the experimental setup to rule out all ordinary explanations before jumping to the conclusion that all of physics from last couple of centuries is wrong.

    Science doesn't say anything about claims that are not provable one way or the other. Such claims, be they "ordinary" or "extraordinary", are philosophy, not science.
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    I quote again from your own source:

    Wikipedia -- Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

    What is Jesus without his miracles, nativity, resurrection...? An ordinary mere mortal.
    If he actually existed.
    The mythic god figure known as Christ (the anointed one) is a figment of your imagination as is your "crushing majority" of scholars... Your own source supports my position that a certain man from Judea existed and that he was a mere mortal, the rest is myth. No point in being upset at me, it was you who went to this source and found that the 'crushing majority' was just part of your catholic indoctrination.
    Were you indoctrinated into believing this myth when you were a devout Christian? How were you able to discern it was a myth and who was the culprit who led you into believing it was not a myth in the first place? What happened to your imagination at that transitional state?


    I hope we can agree that there's nothing simple about walking on water, otherwise everyone would be doing it.
    Let's first agree on one guiding principle: Extraordinary claims (walking on water), require extraordinary evidence.

    Now, let’s get back to what you have stated and not backed up. Where is your evidence that Jesus walked on water? Nevermind extraordinary evidence, just where’s the simple evidence that a man from ancient Judea walked on water 2,000 years ago? If you have none, then I submit to you that your beliefs are based on blind faith and no more convincing than the tooth fairy.
    Mostly they come from the imagination written in a pseudoepigrapha attributed to a man (if he actually existed) who never met the man from ancient Judea (if he actually existed).
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    Your personalized philosophical constructs mean nothing here. If a scripture says beat your slaves for disobedience and equates following god to a slave following his master, it’s not my responsibility to back my statements up since I didn’t make them. I simply quoted the bible. Also, don’t blame me that the New Testament holds the same views on women as Islam.

    Lastly, what’s your view on the New Testament being riddled with pseudepigraphical material. If an author in the New Testament lies about his identity and pretends to be someone else, what other lies is he telling?
    You cannot be sure it is his identity, it might as well be her identity. It is indeed the biggest problem when theists believe pseudoepigraphical materials to be true. That is when they are delusional, I guess you know that very well, as you were delusional once and immersed in pseudoepigraphical literature.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Ok. First, appealing to "scholars" and unnamed scholars at that is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. The opinions of christian believers apologists (whom most of these alleged scholars probably are) is not a convincing argument.
    it is quite a rightful appeal to authority when that appeal is not erroneous, the greatest majority of scholars means the greatest majority of scholars. you want them to be listed by name one by one? the list will be in the thousands. your attempt to discard the mainstream expert opinion simply because the majority of said scholars is not named is the fallacy my dear.

    the second fallacy is to discard the opinion of Christian scholars simply because of their background regardless of whether or not they are producing objective and correct opinions, simply because you disagree with the said opinions.

    the third fallacy is that if you want to discard Christian scholars research on this subject strictly based on their faith, then you should also discard the research performed by atheists.

    the fourth fallacy, is that if a scholar, let's say an atheist, somehow confirms the miraculous achievements attributed to Christ, and therefor His divinity, do you think he will remain atheist for long? and then we discard their opinions next ? :)

    Second, Habermas claims that there are skeptics among these scholars. I find that very hard to believe because he lists number 4, "the tomb was empty" as the most contested argument. But the list also includes a claim that "James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus". So are you saying that the scholars are more skeptical of the empty tomb, than about a resurrected Jesus? That's not believable at all.
    conjecture. no where did anyone say the scholars are more skeptical about the empty tomb than they are about the resurrection.

    As for the alleged "facts" themselves:

    Ok, let's say there was "a man from Judea" who was crucified and had disciples, which seems reasonable enough (I'm not a Jesus mythicists and it doesn't seem like Dynamite Joe is either). So 1-3 could be true. Number 4 is probably false, given the discrepancies in the gospels, but hypothetically it could be true if the disciples stole the body, or simply didn't know where he was buried. But most likely the empty tomb is fiction.

    Nobody can attest to the "experiences" of disciples, maybe they thought they saw Jesus, maybe that was made up afterwards. From the gospels there is the story of Mary Magdalene mistaking a gardener for Jesus. That I find believable. Mary tells the others he saw a gardener, and the disciples invent the story that he was Jesus, and then make up more stories to match.

    As for 6, that reeks of propaganda. Jesus's own discples are the last people whom you could call "doubters".

    7-10 describe beginnings of the cult of Jesus after his death. This is just another variant of "a man from Judea". We know such cult existed and obviously it had to come from somewhere and grow around the next century or so.

    Fact 11 is supernatural, and has no basis in reality.

    Fact 12 about Paul's conversion is a typical conversion story. "First I was a skeptic, blah blah" is just meant to appeal to other people the Christians converted. We have no idea what Paul's religious beliefs were prior to his conversion, and that isn't really relevant. People convert to other religions all the time and there is nothing remarkable about that.


    Your failed analogy shows you don't understand the concept. "Extraordinary evidence" doesn't mean just qualitatively different kind of evidence. It could be simply quantity of "ordinary" evidence. So if someone saw brownian motion happen just once but nobody else had seen it, and we'd have to rely on the Brown's word in it, we would call that "ordinary", but many people being able to reproduce the results over and over again would make the evidence "extraordinary". Also remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    why on earth are you under the impression that faith should manifest itself with a neatly provable procedure? by definition faith is beyond what is provable, if it is provable it becomes factual reality and would therefore lose all its intended meaning. i will give you the example on the level of your own arguments, if God was some giant guy in the sky with a giant mosquito swatter, swatting those who do not pray and worship, the whole world including yourself would be on its knees praying and worshiping.

    but worshiping and praying is not the objective of faith, and God is not a giant guy with a giant mosquito swatter. consequently the type of evidence you are seeking does not apply with the notion of the Divine. and more importantly, do not think for a second that this line of questioning is new, it recorded in the most ancient sections of the bible:
    Psalm 42:
    1 As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.
    2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?
    3 My tears have been my food day and night, while people say to me all day long, “Where is your God?

    and yet here we are, you are asking that same question 3000 years later, and you can rest assured it has been asked around the world every single day since and even before that. had the answer been as you where hoping it would be, you wouldn't be still asking it 3000 years later.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Dynamite Joe can address that himself. I still don't see any difference between your argument and his. You both say that there was some historical figure who could be called "Christ" or "Jesus" or "a man from Judea" (what he's called is irrelevant to the argument) and that historicity of the supernatural aspects of his life is not validated by the scholars.
    if he can address it by himself then why are you interjecting on his behalf?
    and no. we are not saying the same things at all, and it is beyond obvious.

    for people who pretend to pay close attention to what scholars and science say, you surely leave alot to be envied by graying out the differences between clear and distinct notions.

    words are used to depict clearly what we want to say to the best of our abilities. you guys have been writing loads and loads of BS attempting to twist reality and pretty much lie and twist your way around the truth. and you are still doing it now. this is how this discussion has evolved so far and copying/pasting:

    the starting point: "Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed)"
    the second deflection: "There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea"
    the third deflection: There is a distinction between the historicity of Jesus as a figure and the reconstruction of the Life of Jesus.
    the fourth deflection: The scholars do not recognize the divine aspects of Christ's life (while in reality these parts of Christ's life are disputed among scholars)

    and if you argue this much about a point that extremely clear and is as follows: "Scholars agree that Christ existed as a historical figure, they however disagree over his divinity and miraculous acts." then what exactly do you leave for the rather deeper issues? you just cannot put a stop to your arguments when Christ is involved. do you think that the veracity of your arguments are somehow related to how many times you reiterate them?

    You still don't understand what the "extraordinary evidence" means. That every object falls at the same speed if their air resistance is the same everywhere, every time, regardless of what the objects are made of, without exception, is quite extraordinary.
    oh i understand what it means. it means that the extraordinary evidence is as elastic as you want it to be, based on your own personal belief set. how about that? did i nail its definition or not?

    From current science, there is an example of the EM drive. Basically, some laboratories are claiming that firing microwaves inside a closed cylinder can make that cylinder move and it acts as a reactionless drive. This is an extraordinary claim because if true, it would contradict basic physics as we know it. On the other hand, there is an ordinary claim that the EM drive experiments are flawed, and there is some reaction (for example, infrared radiation or thermal expansion or whatever) that explains the phenomenon. The burden of proof for the extraordinary claim is considerably higher than the ordinary claim, so scientists are perfecting the experimental setup to rule out all ordinary explanations before jumping to the conclusion that all of physics from last couple of centuries is wrong.
    that is not what i am arguing at all. you are missing the point despite me having stated it very clearly. the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is an erroneous ones that has no grounds outside its phonetic and aesthetic appeal. for indeed some extraordinary claims may not require extra ordinary evidence. and i have provided several examples.

    every claim that resides outside the sphere of truths that we possess is an extraordinary claim, once it becomes part of our set of uncovered truths than this claim becomes ordinary and a part of our tool set that we can use to further explore more truth and further expand the set at our disposal. the point however is that you are attempting to erroneously make up and create a correlation between claims and evidence, simply because it has some pleasant appeal. that correlation is not real and does not exist.

    Science doesn't say anything about claims that are not provable one way or the other. Such claims, be they "ordinary" or "extraordinary", are philosophy, not science.
    yes because the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a scientific one not a philosophical one :) that claim was made by a philosopher, it is neither a scientific theorem nor a scientific theory. so really? you really want to keep arguing for that?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and move all of that aside. how on earth do you want to apply that to Christ? you heard someone say burden of proof is on you and now you are here demanding evidence to prove that Christ walked on water? :) for real? :p

    and it has to be a scientific proof or else it will be rejected i guess? repeatable, demonstrable and falsifiable as well? and would you like me to derive that theoretically or should it be acceptable to simply use the test equipment in the lab to validate our measurements?

    and what is this fixation about proving God scientifically? is it not extremely laughable even from a scientific perspective?

    and to challenge you on your own pretentious turf, what is science other than seeking out and uncovering a preexisting truth everywhere around us? do you ever bother to think where that truth comes from? why the universe and matter follow mathematical laws? why the universe is comprehensible at all?

    but no, you want to subscribe to the same elasticity principle you were applying earlier, and resize notions to fit your own limited perspective. you do not want to concern yourself with the questions above, and thus you pretend they suddenly become nonexistent or meaningless, and this is still a better version than blindly parroting a couple of youtube neoatheists. am i mistaken? :) i do not think so.
     
    L

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    it is quite a rightful appeal to authority when that appeal is not erroneous, the greatest majority of scholars means the greatest majority of scholars. you want them to be listed by name one by one? the list will be in the thousands. your attempt to discard the mainstream expert opinion simply because the majority of said scholars is not named is the fallacy my dear.
    Theologicians, apologists, and whatever hacks count as "scholars" for purposes of this argument is irrelevant because they are hardly scientists. And in this case, the list of scholars and how they were picked is not revealed. As for their background, a person who writes scholarly articles or books on Jesus is doing so most likely because of religious reasons. The sampling of said scholars is hardly unbiased, and even if some of them are skeptics, there is no way to know how many.

    In short, I reject the assertion that what ignis claimed is a "mainstream expert opinion" at all.

    conjecture. no where did anyone say the scholars are more skeptical about the empty tomb than they are about the resurrection.
    Go read ignis's list of "12 historical facts" and the link he provided again. It was clearly stated that the empty tomb was the most contested of the 12 facts among the scholars that were used. But the inclusion of the resurrected Jesus being less contested makes no sense, which casts doubt to the entire list and how it was compiled.

    Why on earth are you under the impression that faith should manifest itself with a neatly provable procedure? by definition faith is beyond what is provable, if it is provable it becomes factual reality and would therefore lose all its intended meaning. i will give you the example on the level of your own arguments, if God was some giant guy in the sky with a giant mosquito swatter, swatting those who do not pray and worship, the whole world including yourself would be on its knees praying and worshiping.
    Thanks for admitting that faith is not factual reality. You can keep your faith, just don't go making bad arguments for it based on alleged "scholars" somehow proving it, if it is indeed unprovable as you say. As for the mosquito swatter god example, it's not that me or most atheists are actively "seeking" any evidence. We don't particularly care anymore (some less than others), but should we stumble into some evidence we'll consider it with open mind.
     
    L

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    if he [Dynamite Joe] can address it by himself then why are you interjecting on his behalf?
    Simply making an observation.

    oh i understand what it means. it means that the extraordinary evidence is as elastic as you want it to be, based on your own personal belief set. how about that? did i nail its definition or not?
    No. I suggest you start your study of the topic here:
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - RationalWiki

    that is not what i am arguing at all. you are missing the point despite me having stated it very clearly. the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is an erroneous ones that has no grounds outside its phonetic and aesthetic appeal. for indeed some extraordinary claims may not require extra ordinary evidence. and i have provided several examples.
    And I showed how one of those examples was flawed. You had not understood the concept of what is meant by "extraordinary evidence", somehow conflating "simple" with "ordinary". Yes, the phrase is more pop science and a catchphrase, but an intellectually honest person should be able to grasp what it means nonetheless.

    every claim that resides outside the sphere of truths that we possess is an extraordinary claim, once it becomes part of our set of uncovered truths than this claim becomes ordinary and a part of our tool set that we can use to further explore more truth and further expand the set at our disposal. the point however is that you are attempting to erroneously make up and create a correlation between claims and evidence, simply because it has some pleasant appeal. that correlation is not real and does not exist.

    yes because the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a scientific one not a philosophical one :) that claim was made by a philosopher, it is neither a scientific theorem nor a scientific theory. so really? you really want to keep arguing for that?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and move all of that aside. how on earth do you want to apply that to Christ? you heard someone say burden of proof is on you and now you are here demanding evidence to prove that Christ walked on water? :) for real? :p

    and it has to be a scientific proof or else it will be rejected i guess? repeatable, demonstrable and falsifiable as well? and would you like me to derive that theoretically or should it be acceptable to simply use the test equipment in the lab to validate our measurements?

    and what is this fixation about proving God scientifically? is it not extremely laughable even from a scientific perspective?

    and to challenge you on your own pretentious turf, what is science other than seeking out and uncovering a preexisting truth everywhere around us? do you ever bother to think where that truth comes from? why the universe and matter follow mathematical laws? why the universe is comprehensible at all?

    but no, you want to subscribe to the same elasticity principle you were applying earlier, and resize notions to fit your own limited perspective. you do not want to concern yourself with the questions above, and thus you pretend they suddenly become nonexistent or meaningless, and this is still a better version than blindly parroting a couple of youtube neoatheists. am i mistaken? :) i do not think so.
    There are other answers to those questions than theistic ones. In your arrogance, you think metaphysics is somehow exclusive property of the religiously minded, which it is not.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Theologicians, apologists, and whatever hacks count as "scholars" for purposes of this argument is irrelevant because they are hardly scientists. And in this case, the list of scholars and how they were picked is not revealed. As for their background, a person who writes scholarly articles or books on Jesus is doing so most likely because of religious reasons. The sampling of said scholars is hardly unbiased, and even if some of them are skeptics, there is no way to know how many.
    i honestly cannot believe you are still arguing about this. theologians, apologists, etc.. are not scholars of antiquity. scholars of antiquity are historians, archaeologists, etc..

    so can you explain what credentials do you possess to disagree with the mainstream historians? or is it simply because you classify yourself as non Jesus-mythist that you think you can discard the facts you do not like? go do your own research on the subject.

    more importantly, do you know any theologians? do you think you are on par with them in terms of brain power and both scientific and philosophical knowledge?

    our friend DJ once claimed he knows more about Christianity than all the popes combined, and you are now kinda making a similar claim, it seems you guys know about history more than all historians combined as well? :) impressive feat.

    In short, I reject the assertion that what ignis claimed is a "mainstream expert opinion" at all.
    you can reject it all you want, it will still be the opinion of the absolute majority of credited historians, both theists and atheists alike. and what does that make you? someone with blind faith who rejects evidence because he simply does not like it? hmmm pretty much fits the definition of the new atheists if you ask me.

    Go read ignis's list of "12 historical facts" and the link he provided again. It was clearly stated that the empty tomb was the most contested of the 12 facts among the scholars that were used. But the inclusion of the resurrected Jesus being less contested makes no sense, which casts doubt to the entire list and how it was compiled.
    most contested means the most contested, not the point over which they are the most skeptical. words mean what words mean. if they wanted to say the most skeptical point they would have said the most skeptical point, not the most controversial point. if 10 people tell you that say saw someone fly, and yet each claims he was wearing clothes in a different color, the color difference would be the most contested point, but a man flying would still be the most skeptical. ma fikon tekhbsouwa khabissa heik.

    Thanks for admitting that faith is not factual reality.
    more conjectures. either you do not have the ability to understand what you are being told, or you intentionally twist it. either way, is this really how you want to come across? :)

    You can keep your faith, just don't go making bad arguments for it based on alleged "scholars" somehow proving it, if it is indeed unprovable as you say. As for the mosquito swatter god example, it's not that me or most atheists are actively "seeking" any evidence. We don't particularly care anymore (some less than others), but should we stumble into some evidence we'll consider it with open mind.
    another manifestation of your inability to understand? where on earth do you think i was implying that shcolars proved my faith? is there no honest person in the newatheists capable of producing a solid argument without the need to twist and falsify statements and facts?

    you have already shown that you cannot assess a simple statement correctly, and that retires your mind all together, whether it is open or closed, it lacks the minimum requirements when it comes to addressing such matters it seems. and that says it all..

    the reality of atheism is quite pitiful these days my friend. it is not that you simply lack the prerequisites and the basics to tackle such topics, but more importantly you pay no heed to truth in your arguments, you do not mind falsifying statements and facts to appear as if you won over a technicality... :)

    enjoy your eve.
     
    L

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    i honestly cannot believe you are still arguing about this. theologians, apologists, etc.. are not scholars of antiquity. scholars of antiquity are historians, archaeologists, etc..
    Keep in mind that I am responding to the specific claims made by ignis. Not any previous discussion you may have had with Dynamite Joe or anyone else on the thread. I hardly have time to review the entire 500-page thread.

    In ignis's post, he referred to Habermas's study of some 1200 scholars, but details of who or what they are is left to the imagination. My guess that they are mostly not archeologists or historians is as good as yours. If you have the original source feel free to bring it up, but mere assertions are not evidence.

    so can you explain what credentials do you possess to disagree with the mainstream historians? or is it simply because you classify yourself as non Jesus-mythist that you think you can discard the facts you do not like? go do your own research on the subject.

    more importantly, do you know any theologians? do you think you are on par with them in terms of brain power and both scientific and philosophical knowledge?

    our friend DJ once claimed he knows more about Christianity than all the popes combined, and you are now kinda making a similar claim, it seems you guys know about history more than all historians combined as well? :) impressive feat.
    I never claimed that I do. But so far there is no consensus of "all historians combined" or that mainstream historians agree with Habermas's list of historical facts. You are not bringing up facts or evidence, but instead appealing to authority and resorting to personal attack. And I don't need to know more about Christianity than the Pope to see that it's nonsense, anymore than one needs to be an astrologists to tell that horoscopes aren't real.

    most contested means the most contested, not the point over which they are the most skeptical. words mean what words mean. if they wanted to say the most skeptical point they would have said the most skeptical point, not the most controversial point. if 10 people tell you that say saw someone fly, and yet each claims he was wearing clothes in a different color, the color difference would be the most contested point, but a man flying would still be the most skeptical. ma fikon tekhbsouwa khabissa heik.
    The most contested here means that (allegedly) the "historical fact" or an empty tomb was disagreed by most scholars in his sample. Which is not believable, because the list include resurrected Jesus. Your analogy fails, because none of the ten people are skeptical that they saw someone fly, it's me who is skeptical of all of their claims. I highlighted this discrepancy between the alleged scholarly opinion not because I believe the list, but because it objectively shows that the list is unreliable and Habermas's methods are at suspect, the same way I could use the different color shirts to show that the testimonies of people who saw a flying man are unreliable.


    more conjectures. either you do not have the ability to understand what you are being told, or you intentionally twist it. either way, is this really how you want to come across? :)

    another manifestation of your inability to understand? where on earth do you think i was implying that shcolars proved my faith? is there no honest person in the newatheists capable of producing a solid argument without the need to twist and falsify statements and facts?

    you have already shown that you cannot assess a simple statement correctly, and that retires your mind all together, whether it is open or closed, it lacks the minimum requirements when it comes to addressing such matters it seems. and that says it all..

    the reality of atheism is quite pitiful these days my friend. it is not that you simply lack the prerequisites and the basics to tackle such topics, but more importantly you pay no heed to truth in your arguments, you do not mind falsifying statements and facts to appear as if you won over a technicality... :)
    I'm quite used to your brand of personal attacks, as if that makes up for lack of content. I showed how wrong you were with your understanding of what "extraordinary evidence" means, and that seemed to go right over your head. I'm pretty sure you didn't bother checking Rational Wiki (or any other site) as to what Sagan phrase means or how it's connected to the scientific method?

    And pray tell, what statements have I falsified exactly?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Keep in mind that I am responding to the specific claims made by ignis. Not any previous discussion you may have had with Dynamite Joe or anyone else on the thread. I hardly have time to review the entire 500-page thread.

    In ignis's post, he referred to Habermas's study of some 1200 scholars, but details of who or what they are is left to the imagination. My guess that they are mostly not archeologists or historians is as good as yours. If you have the original source feel free to bring it up, but mere assertions are not evidence.


    I never claimed that I do. But so far there is no consensus of "all historians combined" or that mainstream historians agree with Habermas's list of historical facts. You are not bringing up facts or evidence, but instead appealing to authority and resorting to personal attack. And I don't need to know more about Christianity than the Pope to see that it's nonsense, anymore than one needs to be an astrologists to tell that horoscopes aren't real.


    The most contested here means that (allegedly) the "historical fact" or an empty tomb was disagreed by most scholars in his sample. Which is not believable, because the list include resurrected Jesus. Your analogy fails, because none of the ten people are skeptical that they saw someone fly, it's me who is skeptical of all of their claims. I highlighted this discrepancy between the alleged scholarly opinion not because I believe the list, but because it objectively shows that the list is unreliable and Habermas's methods are at suspect, the same way I could use the different color shirts to show that the testimonies of people who saw a flying man are unreliable.



    I'm quite used to your brand of personal attacks, as if that makes up for lack of content. I showed how wrong you were with your understanding of what "extraordinary evidence" means, and that seemed to go right over your head. I'm pretty sure you didn't bother checking Rational Wiki (or any other site) as to what Sagan phrase means or how it's connected to the scientific method?

    And pray tell, what statements have I falsified exactly?
    ok class time, take notes.

    First:
    the statement "extraordinary claims requires extra ordinary evidence" is not a scientific statement, it is now more like a philosophical statement turned popular that holds no weight outside that perspective. it can be riddled with counter examples. its propagators simply use it elastically to apply it where it does not apply. it is not a scientific theory nor a scientific theorem, it is neither quantifiable nor measurable. it is a merely a philosophical statement. so simply put, drop it from your scientific dictionary because it is a transgression against science.
    Second:
    there are no concrete evidence that can be presented to the events in question other than the eye witness testimony of contemporaries, the martyrdom of the eye-witnesses, the spread of Christianity, the deification of Christ, etc.. this is the type of evidence that exist and that's all there is considering the time gap separating us from the events. they did not leave a recorded footage of the resurrection, nor did they call for a biology and medicine conference in jerusalem in the year 33AD to study it. they left the kind of evidence that is expected from that era.​
    Third:
    what we have is the expected type of evidence and accounts for an event from that era. it is even better documented than the accounts of alexander the great, muhammad, and many other historical figures.​
    Fourth:
    historians and scholars, including atheist historians and scholars, in their majority recognize that Christ is a factual historical figure. they however dispute other aspects of his life. this is a sane fact. deal with it. recognizing that fact does not make you a theist while rejecting it makes you a desperate blind believer in some anti-deist ideology, so you do not really need to claim you know more than all the historians combined about this point, it is inherently factored in the position you are adopting.​
    Fifth:
    when you address me with statements of this caliber: "You can keep your faith, just don't go making bad arguments for it based on alleged "scholars" somehow proving it" when i have never made the argument that scholars proved my faith, indicates you are either intellectually dishonest and falsifying facts or intellectually incapable. this is not a personal attack, it is a fact. if it upsets you, work a bit on yourself, improve your intellect or learn to harbor more respect for the truth, especially when you state it is not the first time you hear it. and that's without even mentioning irony when you assume the role of assessing other people's arguments, and going the extra step to assume the authority of telling them they should keep their faith to themselves in a thread about Christianity, nevertheless..
    Sixth:
    the terms contested, controversial and skeptical have distinct meanings, they are not interchangeable. i have pointed out with a concrete example the most contested need not be the most controversial or the most skeptical. the resurrection is the most skeptical item scientifically, the empty tomb is the most contested based on the witness accounts. period. case closed. stop arguing just to argue.
    That is the last i have to say about any of these points.
     
    Last edited:
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Well-Known Member
    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Theists are so thick, the do not get that. Did you believe in the extraordinary claim of walking on water when you were a devout Christian? Can you walk us through on how you debunked it when you acquire the knowledge of all popes and bishops combined? Also, did this include the knowledge of all popes and bishops across Christian denominations or only specific denominations? Do you happen to have acquired anything from Mormons?
    You need the knowledge of all popes and bishops combined to validate whether to believe that people can walk on water?
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Well-Known Member
    impressive how thick minded you can be. let me spell it out for you. it is impressive nevertheless how you can regurgitate that same erroneous point over and over and over again. wow.

    the majority of scholars agree and converge on the fact that Jesus existed, including atheist scholars. if these atheist scholars believed in the miracles of Jesus they would not be atheists now would they? is it that difficult to grasp? do you understand what the word "disputed" means and why it was used in the text you have quoted? and please stop quoting that paragraph, what are you 2 years old?

    no matter how many times you quote that same paragraph, color it, and regurgitate it is not going to change anything. you were shedding doubts on the existence of Jesus, Jesus it turns out is real, in accordance with most scholars. then you fled from one thing to the next, and now you are stuck on parroting and reparroting, seemingly unable to push beyond some mental handicap that you crushed into; as if we this the first time the world discovers that the divinity of Christ is disputed, even among scholars. bhannik 3ala hal iktishef el 3azim


    You're dodging. I wouldn't hold it against you, the man just absolutely crushed your reasoning.


    oh the silliness. what kind of evidence do you want? you want the footage from the ATM camera facing the beach? or do you want Christ's footprints floating on top of the water? could you ever, and i mean ever, think of anything sillier to parrot? and i know you are parroting because you are incapable of coming up even with such silliness on your own. there is nothing original about you, except your uncanny ability to reiterate the same point in the same way to death.

    what is even sillier than asking for "evidence" in such a context is the petty perception you have of God. in your mind you think that walking on water is the making or breaking of divinity. in reality it is meaningless in the context of overpowering nature, and it is not about the display of supernatural ability either. but that is a pretty different topic, inaccessible while you still get the ABCs wrong.
    Yes how silly of him to challenge you on the fact that you sincerely believe that virgin births are real and not at all fiction. Still dodging.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Active Member
    impressive how thick minded you can be. let me spell it out for you. it is impressive nevertheless how you can regurgitate that same erroneous point over and over and over again. wow.

    the majority of scholars agree and converge on the fact that Jesus existed, including atheist scholars. if these atheist scholars believed in the miracles of Jesus they would not be atheists now would they? is it that difficult to grasp? do you understand what the word "disputed" means and why it was used in the text you have quoted? and please stop quoting that paragraph, what are you 2 years old?

    no matter how many times you quote that same paragraph, color it, and regurgitate it is not going to change anything. you were shedding doubts on the existence of Jesus, Jesus it turns out is real, in accordance with most scholars. then you fled from one thing to the next, and now you are stuck on parroting and reparroting, seemingly unable to push beyond some mental handicap that you crushed into; as if we this the first time the world discovers that the divinity of Christ is disputed, even among scholars. bhannik 3ala hal iktishef el 3azim
    Simply highlighting the fact that your "crushing majority" was in fact a myth like your Christ. When you refer to Christ, you are referring to the biblical Christ, Messiah, Saviour, the divine Son of God etc. I could quote you the text again from your own source, but I’ll spare you any further embarrassment as I've made my point. There’s no argument with me that some Nazarine named Jesus or something else (of which the bible was loosely based on) existed in ancient Judea. However, we have no reliable sources on the real man. My position is this Nazarine was a mere mortal and everything else is classified as mythology. Scientists or scholars are only concerned with objectivity, so when the text says “separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances”, or supernatural accounts are disputed, it means there’s no evidence for a biblical son of God, semi-god, God, or whatever the authors of the New testament claimed he was. Moreover, I agree with Lemon on Christian scholars having no objectivity. If they were objective on this subject, they would not be Christians. Objectivity and Christian belief are irreconcilable. So the presence or inclusion of 'christian scholars' on the life of Christ would undoubtedly skew any findings.

    oh the silliness. what kind of evidence do you want? you want the footage from the ATM camera facing the beach? or do you want Christ's footprints floating on top of the water? could you ever, and i mean ever, think of anything sillier to parrot? and i know you are parroting because you are incapable of coming up even with such silliness on your own. there is nothing original about you, except your uncanny ability to reiterate the same point in the same way to death.

    what is even sillier than asking for "evidence" in such a context is the petty perception you have of God. in your mind you think that walking on water is the making or breaking of divinity. in reality it is meaningless in the context of overpowering nature, and it is not about the display of supernatural ability either. but that is a pretty different topic, inaccessible while you still get the ABCs wrong.
    The whole premise of Christianity is based on Christ’s miracles. Take away the resurrection and you take away salvation according to the bible. I recall by dying on the cross, he saved us all. Hilarious I know. I’m not debating supernatural ability, that’s for kids to believe in superheroes, not for any rational minded person. The point I was making is Christians should not insist on evidence to validate their superstition, let alone claim a “crushing majority” of scholars agree with them. To believe in superstition and mythology, is by definition, blind faith. To your credit, you have since backtracked from claiming evidence for Christ miracles, which I applaud you for.

    Furthermore, the New Testament is a collection of falsely attributed works by non-contemporaries and written well after the death of the man in question. Paul, who did live at the time of the Nazarine, his letters are a collection of pseudepigraphical material, hacked and edited texts, and the works that were believed to be entirely genuine, are now called into question as far as their complete originality. Nonetheless, we must not discount the importance of Saul of Tarsus; he was a central figure in Christianity. In fact, he probably started the whole racket at the expense of the Nazarine.
     
    Last edited:
    Top