Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The death of YOLO

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:58:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This guy is ona role with these videos.

A lot of you probably didn't care for the "why I hate religion, but love Jesus" video.. BUT I thought it was on point.

Check the video out, let me know what you think.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 4:08:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that there are people who would dispute that Jesus is historically documented.

I heard that somewhere in the beginning, and couldn't drive it from my mind.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 4:13:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 4:08:59 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I think that there are people who would dispute that Jesus is historically documented.

I heard that somewhere in the beginning, and couldn't drive it from my mind.

I was just going to say, Jesus's life is hardly a historical fact like the life of Julius Ceasar for example. Where is the external verification like we have with other historical facts?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 4:25:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"You're clean, you're spotless, the curse has been squashed -
that's all baptism is: just showing you've been washed."

That's exactly what Ananias told Saul:

"Arise, and be baptized, and show that you've been washed, calling on the name of the Lord." --- or something like that.

Here:

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Hmm ... ummm ... welllll ... he was close, wasn't he? Sorta? Nice rhythm, though, even he sorta misquoted. Not a biggie. He just messed the order up a tad.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 6:01:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 4:13:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 4:08:59 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I think that there are people who would dispute that Jesus is historically documented.

I heard that somewhere in the beginning, and couldn't drive it from my mind.

I was just going to say, Jesus's life is hardly a historical fact like the life of Julius Ceasar for example. Where is the external verification like we have with other historical facts?

Let me ask you. What person or artifact would you consider a historical fact from over 2000 years ago?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.

Sorry I aint mean to seem like I'm frontin knowing x% of people believe it. I've read a good number of books on the historicity of the new testament and the general consensus that I've seen is that it's pretty clear that there's definetly not a majority historians that doubt the death of Jesus on the cross.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 6:24:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.

Sorry I aint mean to seem like I'm frontin knowing x% of people believe it. I've read a good number of books on the historicity of the new testament and the general consensus that I've seen is that it's pretty clear that there's definetly not a majority historians that doubt the death of Jesus on the cross.

I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:24:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.

Sorry I aint mean to seem like I'm frontin knowing x% of people believe it. I've read a good number of books on the historicity of the new testament and the general consensus that I've seen is that it's pretty clear that there's definetly not a majority historians that doubt the death of Jesus on the cross.

I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted"
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:31:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 7:26:31 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:24:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.

Sorry I aint mean to seem like I'm frontin knowing x% of people believe it. I've read a good number of books on the historicity of the new testament and the general consensus that I've seen is that it's pretty clear that there's definetly not a majority historians that doubt the death of Jesus on the cross.

I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted"

Thank you. That's all I wanted, was a little support for the claim. I wasn't claiming Jesus never existed.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 6:09:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Show me statistics that it's generally accepted by Historians.

.........

"Although there is disagreement about issues such as the calling of disciples, the agreement on crucifixion is very widespread, and most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[52][53][24][54] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[25] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[53] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[24] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[54] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[55]"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:58:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 5:36:26 PM, stubs wrote:
He talks about the death of Jesus on the cross as historical fact. That is generally accepted among historians but as always there's people who don't believe it.

Even Christopher Hitchens believes Jesus was a historical person because of the mangled telling of his birth.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is possible that Jesus was a historical fact - but the evidence we have does not point to that conclusion. Furthermore, it doesn't help that there is also historical evidence that Jesus is a myth. Although you're probably all sick of reading my debates on this.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:54:08 PM, larztheloser wrote:
I think it is possible that Jesus was a historical fact - but the evidence we have does not point to that conclusion. Furthermore, it doesn't help that there is also historical evidence that Jesus is a myth. Although you're probably all sick of reading my debates on this.

Statements like this remind me of YECs.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

&

Dr. J.J. Griesbach wrote: "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book." (Composer's Source: http://www.trends.ca...)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 10:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

Haha you can say you read many books and its clear most historians reject it, but we both know you would be lying haha
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 3:58:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 10:24:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

Haha you can say you read many books and its clear most historians reject it, but we both know you would be lying haha

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that both claims would be unsupported as far as both of our comments are concerned, and would hold as much weight in the context of our discussion. It was somebody else who supported the claim, not you lol
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:28:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 3:58:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 10:24:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

Haha you can say you read many books and its clear most historians reject it, but we both know you would be lying haha

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that both claims would be unsupported as far as both of our comments are concerned, and would hold as much weight in the context of our discussion. It was somebody else who supported the claim, not you lol

If I claim 2+2=4 are you gonna ask me for sources proving that? :P
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:39:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:28:49 AM, stubs wrote:
At 10/7/2012 3:58:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/6/2012 10:24:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/6/2012 6:44:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I can just say I've read many books and it's clear that most historians reject it. It would hold just as much weight as your argument. Can you back up your statement that most historians agree, or, are you just making it up?

Haha you can say you read many books and its clear most historians reject it, but we both know you would be lying haha

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that both claims would be unsupported as far as both of our comments are concerned, and would hold as much weight in the context of our discussion. It was somebody else who supported the claim, not you lol

If I claim 2+2=4 are you gonna ask me for sources proving that? :P

False analogy. 4 follows logically from 2 + 2 without need for support. "All historians agree Jesus existed" doesn't follow from anything you said, it was just a bare assertion. Nice try though kiddo lol
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:38:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:39:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
False analogy. 4 follows logically from 2 + 2 without need for support. "All historians agree Jesus existed" doesn't follow from anything you said, it was just a bare assertion. Nice try though kiddo lol

Whoa I never said "all historians" just that its generally accepted. I just meant I don't think people need sources for what is commonly known.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:38:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/7/2012 10:39:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
False analogy. 4 follows logically from 2 + 2 without need for support. "All historians agree Jesus existed" doesn't follow from anything you said, it was just a bare assertion. Nice try though kiddo lol

Whoa I never said "all historians" just that its generally accepted. I just meant I don't think people need sources for what is commonly known.

I wouldn't say everyone knows the general consensus of historians on a given topic.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 1:04:47 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 12:38:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/7/2012 10:39:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
False analogy. 4 follows logically from 2 + 2 without need for support. "All historians agree Jesus existed" doesn't follow from anything you said, it was just a bare assertion. Nice try though kiddo lol

Whoa I never said "all historians" just that its generally accepted. I just meant I don't think people need sources for what is commonly known.

I wouldn't say everyone knows the general consensus of historians on a given topic.

But most that read through this forum do know that about that specific topic.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 2:01:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 1:59:46 PM, stubs wrote:
But most that read through this forum do know that about that specific topic.

Still should support it.

Not a huge issue, because it's a pretty blatant consensus.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13