Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Funny but educational discussion over Jesus.

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 1:42:05 PM, GodSands wrote:
People, why have yet not you listened to this video?????

I don't really see what the point was.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 2:30:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 1:52:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:42:05 PM, GodSands wrote:
People, why have yet not you listened to this video?????

I don't really see what the point was.

The point, I guess was to show that athiests are willingly ignorant, best watch the video to understand me here.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 2:32:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 2:30:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:52:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:42:05 PM, GodSands wrote:
People, why have yet not you listened to this video?????

I don't really see what the point was.

The point, I guess was to show that athiests are willingly ignorant, best watch the video to understand me here.

At what point in the video was that point made? Only I got four minutes in and got bored.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 2:48:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 2:32:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 2:30:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:52:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:42:05 PM, GodSands wrote:
People, why have yet not you listened to this video?????

I don't really see what the point was.

The point, I guess was to show that athiests are willingly ignorant, best watch the video to understand me here.

At what point in the video was that point made? Only I got four minutes in and got bored.

Ok, you got bored, what can I say?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 2:48:12 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 8/14/2011 2:32:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 2:30:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:52:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:42:05 PM, GodSands wrote:
People, why have yet not you listened to this video?????

I don't really see what the point was.

The point, I guess was to show that athiests are willingly ignorant, best watch the video to understand me here.

At what point in the video was that point made? Only I got four minutes in and got bored.

Ok, you got bored, what can I say?

At what point in the video do you find vindication for your bigotry?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 3:18:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, mythicist gets pwned by someone who knows what they are talking about. What's new? ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 3:35:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have listened to that video--it is super cool. What's even better is that Bart Ehrman will be releasing a book in a few months on this topic.

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
http://www.harpercollinscatalogs.com...

Unfortunately, it will be only an e-book, but that is certainly better than nothing but a bunch of Christian books against mythicism.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 3:39:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 3:35:15 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
I have listened to that video--it is super cool. What's even better is that Bart Ehrman will be releasing a book in a few months on this topic.

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
http://www.harpercollinscatalogs.com...

Unfortunately, it will be only an e-book, but that is certainly better than nothing but a bunch of Christian books against mythicism.

Nice!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 4:52:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.

Another example would be it is clear to say St. Nicholas was a real person, but we can also distinguish the legend that was built from him, Santa Claus, as a myth.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 4:58:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.

That is a good point, and I think that the critical scholars' decision to talk about the presumed existence of the historical "Jesus," while not accepting many of the myths, has a lot to do with common conventions of language. Almost all of us would feel comfortable talking about the historical St. Nicholas, though of course his historical character is likewise clouded with flattering myths. Same applies to Buddha, Prophet Muhammad, Alexander the Great, Plato, and so on. The tendency to say, "The historical character of X does not match the mythical character of X, therefore X did not exist," seems to be a rhetorical peculiarity of those who have an ideological opposition and doubt about the historical existence of X.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 5:03:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:58:02 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.

That is a good point, and I think that the critical scholars' decision to talk about the presumed existence of the historical "Jesus," while not accepting many of the myths, has a lot to do with common conventions of language. Almost all of us would feel comfortable talking about the historical St. Nicholas, though of course his historical character is likewise clouded with flattering myths. Same applies to Buddha, Prophet Muhammad, Alexander the Great, Plato, and so on. The tendency to say, "The historical character of X does not match the mythical character of X, therefore X did not exist," seems to be a rhetorical peculiarity of those who have an ideological opposition and doubt about the historical existence of X.

I actually think the thing is that rhetorical peculiarity applies to those with an emotional investment to the character. They refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the myth and the real person. Ie. Santa Claus vs St. Nicholas or Yesua O Nazarene vs Historical Jesus.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 5:03:41 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:58:02 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.

That is a good point, and I think that the critical scholars' decision to talk about the presumed existence of the historical "Jesus," while not accepting many of the myths, has a lot to do with common conventions of language. Almost all of us would feel comfortable talking about the historical St. Nicholas, though of course his historical character is likewise clouded with flattering myths. Same applies to Buddha, Prophet Muhammad, Alexander the Great, Plato, and so on. The tendency to say, "The historical character of X does not match the mythical character of X, therefore X did not exist," seems to be a rhetorical peculiarity of those who have an ideological opposition and doubt about the historical existence of X.

I actually think the thing is that rhetorical peculiarity applies to those with an emotional investment to the character. They refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the myth and the real person. Ie. Santa Claus vs St. Nicholas or Yesua O Nazarene vs Historical Jesus.

OK, I have no significant disagreement.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 5:53:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:52:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:50:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The thing with this is, I don't disagree with Ehrman on his assessment of the person the Jesus story is based on was, from what I have read. I just wonder if it is intellectually honest to say that is Jesus. Most historical people evolve based on what historians find. The historical Jesus that probably existed was a man who was probably born in nazareth, who was a common apocalyptic preacher. I just don't think you can define that as a born of virgin man who literally performed miracles and rose from the dead. Not really any different then saying that Ed Gein is real, leatherface is not. I say there was a historical man behind the stories, but was Jesus(of christianity) real, not a chance.


Another example would be it is clear to say St. Nicholas was a real person, but we can also distinguish the legend that was built from him, Santa Claus, as a myth.

The thing with Santa Claus is that he has demonic elements behind him, or rather more openly said, supernatural elements behind his nature. So, although St. Nicholas was a real person, much like Jesus Christ, it seems to me that there is a pattern here of divinity over both these characters, both real characters. And following the same deceptive idea that demons and Satan plays which is the belief that they do not exist, gives an indication that Santa Claus (who does not exist) is in the same position as Christ, a person that is over speculated for all the wrong motives. In the case for Santa Claus, he brings gifts to children if they are good. Which in turn, makes it out to be that Jesus Christ is Santa Claus for people who are mature, some what realistic but gullible at the same time.

So, likewise with St. Nicholas being the same person as Santa Claus as a historical figure, St. Nicholas didn't travel all around the world in one night and monitor every child all year round. And this in turn once again, gives the impression that Christ is no different, that yes, the historical Jesus existed, but come on, Jesus Christ didn't actually heal the sick, raise the dead and Himself rose from the grave. And if you are clever, seeing the similarities in all of this, you will see that this type of thinking is demonic.

Jesus Christ was resurrected, He did heal the sick and cure the lame, and Christ did die on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God so that all who repent and believe will be saved. Santa Claus just seems to mirror the truth of Christ an adult perspective of this whole mythical idea that such is not possible. And that is false.