Total Posts:268|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus existed.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:44:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

Ok Jesus probably existed, so what?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:05:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

And neither Socrates nor Plato claimed divinity. Essentially, who cares?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:09:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

Do you believe Socrates to be a God and do you tfght wars in the name of Socrates. How is your argument even valid.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

The first link you provided states quite clearly that Socrates was a genuine historical figure. The minor dispute is exactly what his teachings were as reported by Plato. So no real controversy there as regards his existence.

There are two main arguments against this type of comparison:

1. Socrates has no claim to be supernatural, just an outstanding human man. Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is far greater on those claiming Jesus was a real historical figure who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

2. Motivation. There is no compelling reason to believe that Socrates was an invented character. What would Plato have to gain in making him up? On the other hand there is huge incentive for religious zealots to invent characters and events that help them evangelise. They do it all the time. Look at Mormonism and Scientology for example.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

This.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:53:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.

Ok, as an atheist, I would say, you seem to be misunderstanding the bible as a historical source, or should I say sources.

The bible claims that the earth was created in six days. This claim comes from 2 different creation stories written thousands of years after the events its claiming.
The exodus comes from the J,E,P,D sources again written hundreds of years after the fact, and the exodus has been shown to be false by archeological evidence since we would expect to find signs of it and it hasn't happened(much harder to do in the case of Jesus)

The flood was written by the J and P sources and ditto for everything said about the exodus.

The bible claims Jesus is god- extraordinary claim.

The bible claims a man named Jesus existed-ordinary claim.

Therefore we use 2 different standards of evidence to judge these(at least in a way, if you don't count the foundational information we are using to determine how often people exists vs how often a man is actually a god).
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:54:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

Jesus the man or Jesus the deity?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:59:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:48:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:38:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't see anyone rejecting that Socrates existed.

There is an argument over what all Socrates said and thought. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have none of his writings lasting to the modern day. We can only know him from the writings of 4 sources and sometimes these writings are contradictory.

Are there any arguments for the non-existence of Jesus, That don't equally apply to Socrates?

More about Socrates http://plato.stanford.edu...

The first link you provided states quite clearly that Socrates was a genuine historical figure. The minor dispute is exactly what his teachings were as reported by Plato. So no real controversy there as regards his existence.

What is the evidence for him being a genuine historical figure?


There are two main arguments against this type of comparison:

1. Socrates has no claim to be supernatural, just an outstanding human man. Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is far greater on those claiming Jesus was a real historical figure who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

Those are the claims about Jesus I am discussing the veracity of his existence.


2. Motivation. There is no compelling reason to believe that Socrates was an invented character. What would Plato have to gain in making him up? On the other hand there is huge incentive for religious zealots to invent characters and events that help them evangelise. They do it all the time. Look at Mormonism and Scientology for example.

That is a total non sequitur to the validity of someone's existence. It's an appeal to ignorance because you can not think of any motivation for Plato to make up Socrates. It is not unheard of in history for people to make up teachers to espouse their own thoughts.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.

Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:53:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.

Ok, as an atheist, I would say, you seem to be misunderstanding the bible as a historical source, or should I say sources.

The bible claims that the earth was created in six days. This claim comes from 2 different creation stories written thousands of years after the events its claiming.
The exodus comes from the J,E,P,D sources again written hundreds of years after the fact, and the exodus has been shown to be false by archeological evidence since we would expect to find signs of it and it hasn't happened(much harder to do in the case of Jesus)

The flood was written by the J and P sources and ditto for everything said about the exodus.

The bible claims Jesus is god- extraordinary claim.

The bible claims a man named Jesus existed-ordinary claim.

Therefore we use 2 different standards of evidence to judge these(at least in a way, if you don't count the foundational information we are using to determine how often people exists vs how often a man is actually a god).

I don't understand your confusion. You've agreed with everything I've said.
Nevermind.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:06:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:03:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:53:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.

Ok, as an atheist, I would say, you seem to be misunderstanding the bible as a historical source, or should I say sources.

The bible claims that the earth was created in six days. This claim comes from 2 different creation stories written thousands of years after the events its claiming.
The exodus comes from the J,E,P,D sources again written hundreds of years after the fact, and the exodus has been shown to be false by archeological evidence since we would expect to find signs of it and it hasn't happened(much harder to do in the case of Jesus)

The flood was written by the J and P sources and ditto for everything said about the exodus.

The bible claims Jesus is god- extraordinary claim.

The bible claims a man named Jesus existed-ordinary claim.

Therefore we use 2 different standards of evidence to judge these(at least in a way, if you don't count the foundational information we are using to determine how often people exists vs how often a man is actually a god).

I don't understand your confusion. You've agreed with everything I've said.
Nevermind.

My real problem was with your reference to the bible as what appeared to be a singular source. When the bible is in fact many sources for which we must make an evaluation on each individual sources veracity and reliability.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:13:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:06:17 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:03:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:53:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.

Ok, as an atheist, I would say, you seem to be misunderstanding the bible as a historical source, or should I say sources.

The bible claims that the earth was created in six days. This claim comes from 2 different creation stories written thousands of years after the events its claiming.
The exodus comes from the J,E,P,D sources again written hundreds of years after the fact, and the exodus has been shown to be false by archeological evidence since we would expect to find signs of it and it hasn't happened(much harder to do in the case of Jesus)

The flood was written by the J and P sources and ditto for everything said about the exodus.

The bible claims Jesus is god- extraordinary claim.

The bible claims a man named Jesus existed-ordinary claim.

Therefore we use 2 different standards of evidence to judge these(at least in a way, if you don't count the foundational information we are using to determine how often people exists vs how often a man is actually a god).

I don't understand your confusion. You've agreed with everything I've said.
Nevermind.

My real problem was with your reference to the bible as what appeared to be a singular source. When the bible is in fact many sources for which we must make an evaluation on each individual sources veracity and reliability.

Well no! The claim is that the bible is the word of an all knowing god. If any of the bible is not in fact factual then that is proof that the bible is not the word of a god. Much of the bible has been proven to be false, ergo not the word of an all knowing god.

Therefore whatever the bible claims can be taken with a grain of salt.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:16:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.

Lmao, I am combining the 2, nope I am not, I am actually the one making sure that everyone understands the difference, since you did such inadequate job of doing so in your OP.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:17:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:16:20 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.

Lmao, I am combining the 2, nope I am not, I am actually the one making sure that everyone understands the difference, since you did such inadequate job of doing so in your OP.

Atheist can't answer one claim honestly. I ask for the case against Jesus existence and all I get is "So whats" and tangent arguments about his divinity.

Seriously why does any one take you guys seriously, when you can't ever back a single claim you make. To much in habit of tearing down others.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:20:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:13:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:17 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:03:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:53:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:46:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:13:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
So when an Atheist diatribe is exposed for it's lack of rational thought the response is "so what?"

If you don't find it relevant to a discussion on and about religion please do not respond.

But aware if you say Jesus never existed you are proponents of type of reasoning that would unhinge almost all historical evidence for many other world changing people.

My post is merely to bring attention to the validity of Jesus existing. I've yet to see anyone address the point.

Would the anti-theist among us please stop changing the subject or being derisive. If you have made a claim Jesus does not exist, I ask again how that is not applicable to Socrates.

The bible claims that jesus existed. Big deal.
The bible claims that the universe was created in six days. Big deal.
The bible claims that jesus was god. Big deal.
The bible claims that an exodus from Egypt happened. Big deal.
The bible claims that a worldwide flood happened. Big deal.

Ok, as an atheist, I would say, you seem to be misunderstanding the bible as a historical source, or should I say sources.

The bible claims that the earth was created in six days. This claim comes from 2 different creation stories written thousands of years after the events its claiming.
The exodus comes from the J,E,P,D sources again written hundreds of years after the fact, and the exodus has been shown to be false by archeological evidence since we would expect to find signs of it and it hasn't happened(much harder to do in the case of Jesus)

The flood was written by the J and P sources and ditto for everything said about the exodus.

The bible claims Jesus is god- extraordinary claim.

The bible claims a man named Jesus existed-ordinary claim.

Therefore we use 2 different standards of evidence to judge these(at least in a way, if you don't count the foundational information we are using to determine how often people exists vs how often a man is actually a god).

I don't understand your confusion. You've agreed with everything I've said.
Nevermind.

My real problem was with your reference to the bible as what appeared to be a singular source. When the bible is in fact many sources for which we must make an evaluation on each individual sources veracity and reliability.

Well no! The claim is that the bible is the word of an all knowing god. If any of the bible is not in fact factual then that is proof that the bible is not the word of a god. Much of the bible has been proven to be false, ergo not the word of an all knowing god.

Therefore whatever the bible claims can be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with the first 2 sentences. Its the third where we disagree. I am saying that since its not the word of god and the word of man, and many men at that, we must now re-evaluate each source on its own merits and see what history we do find accurate in there. Just because it is not the word of god does not mean the entire set of sources we know as the bible should be completely thrown out. Even one of the most welllknown mythicists with any credentials, Richard Carrier in his book Not the Impossible faith recognizes this and uses Acts as a separate source to draw historical conclusions.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:22:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:17:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:16:20 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.

Lmao, I am combining the 2, nope I am not, I am actually the one making sure that everyone understands the difference, since you did such inadequate job of doing so in your OP.

Atheist can't answer one claim honestly. I ask for the case against Jesus existence and all I get is "So whats" and tangent arguments about his divinity.

Seriously why does any one take you guys seriously, when you can't ever back a single claim you make. To much in habit of tearing down others.

If you had paid attention, I actually did make an argument for his existence(the historical jesus,since I believe in one) but then countered with an argument against the existence of the theological Jesus, so that I actually covered both definitions of Jesus in use today. This is whats called cover both ends of a topic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:27:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:22:31 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:17:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:16:20 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.

Lmao, I am combining the 2, nope I am not, I am actually the one making sure that everyone understands the difference, since you did such inadequate job of doing so in your OP.

Atheist can't answer one claim honestly. I ask for the case against Jesus existence and all I get is "So whats" and tangent arguments about his divinity.

Seriously why does any one take you guys seriously, when you can't ever back a single claim you make. To much in habit of tearing down others.

If you had paid attention, I actually did make an argument for his existence(the historical jesus,since I believe in one) but then countered with an argument against the existence of the theological Jesus, so that I actually covered both definitions of Jesus in use today. This is whats called cover both ends of a topic.

You and Bulprof just go ahead and bury this thread between you two about the bible as a whole. I'm not interested in discussing stuff with you. You saw what you wanted, got on a soap box and made accusations.

Atheist MO. no supporting claims just shift subject obscure and accuse. You think you have participated in a rational discussion you have not.

I still haven't seen any logical reasoning for any one to claim Jesus didn't exist.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:31:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
spelled out for you so that the less bright among us can get the argument.

Historical Jesus vs Theological Jesus is equivocation, therefore the most common Jesus referred to did not exist.

No such equivocation occurs in the case of Socrates. Argument given, discussion over, your question has been answered. Sorry it took so long for you to get that.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:35:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:59:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

What is the evidence for him being a genuine historical figure?

Why do you require that evidence from me? I leave that to the experts. The point is that the very authority you cited states that Socrates was a genuine historical figure.

Those are the claims about Jesus I am discussing the veracity of his existence.

How could you possibly have such a discussion without considering the claims made about the subject?

That is a total non sequitur to the validity of someone's existence. It's an appeal to ignorance because you can not think of any motivation for Plato to make up Socrates. It is not unheard of in history for people to make up teachers to espouse their own thoughts.

I"m not sure you understand what a non sequitur is. I wasn't reaching an unsupported conclusion.

Are you seriously saying that Plato would deny himself the credit for new thoughts and ideas by putting words in the mouths of others? Even if that were the case, which is far fetched, your argument defeats itself. If such motivation existed it would apply ten-fold to the anonymous NT authors who could not claim divinity for themselves and get away with it. They had no choice but to project such attributes on another, invented or otherwise.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:37:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
as for the bible discussion, did you ever stop to think that the point of that discussion was to show where the other types of mythocists, go wrong, you know potentially helping your point? Nope, guess not.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:38:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:31:02 AM, bebil10 wrote:
spelled out for you so that the less bright among us can get the argument.

Historical Jesus vs Theological Jesus is equivocation, therefore the most common Jesus referred to did not exist.

No such equivocation occurs in the case of Socrates. Argument given, discussion over, your question has been answered. Sorry it took so long for you to get that.

Prove that with scientific evidence! Show me a paper of who conducted the experiment.

This is just your bare assertion and hearsay.

Maybe you can find 20 websites and list those links. Because if you and 20 other people say it then it must be true. That's how debateuser thinks. But if I find 20 people saying your not true then I'm right.

It's just disgusting how a simple inquiry into one common Atheist claim is met with nothing of substance. Disgusting but usual
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:39:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:27:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:22:31 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:17:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:16:20 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:13:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:09:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:06:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:02:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:31:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
Jesus existed is a complicated matter, that often falls into the category of equivocation. Let me explain, we have the Jesus of Theology who was born in Bethlehem, performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose from the dead.

Then we have the Jesus of history, who was probably born in Nazareth, was believed to perform miracles(but probably didn't, as was the case with many preachers of this time), taught of a coming end time(for which he was wrong), taught the Jewish law, died on the cross for crimes against Rome(probably claiming to be king of the Jews. where it was a crime for anyone else to claim to be a king), the end of Jesus.

The 2 characters are so far removed from one another that I say yes there was a historical Jesus, but no your Jesus did not exist.

My Jesus? What in the OP thinks I am speaking about anything other than a historical person called Jesus.

The false equivocation is from you, not me. So just an Atheist straw man. again who can not stay on subject.


Trust me I know what you are doing you are trying to go from historical jesus existed, to christianity is actually supported. Not happening here.

No. What I am doing is showing a common statement of Atheist to be false. Or at the very least the misapplication of standards to deduce if a historical figure existed or not.

I'm clearly self labeled as a Deist.

Curious why the off point and tangent replies. So when some one says Jesus never existed they are probably wrong And have no real basis for the claim.

Its not off topic, this topic is intellectual dishonesty, because what is being referred to as the historical Jesus is far different then the theological jesus, yet when a christian hears that the historical Jesus existed, they take that as proof of their religion, which couldn't be further from the case, the actual historical Jesus is damning to the Christian religion, and that needs to be pointed out in each and every discussion of the Historical Jesus, otherwise we are delivering misinformation.

Don't call me intellectually dishonest. I am asking for the argument against Jesus historical presence compared to the evidence accepted for Socrates.

I don't give a freak what you think is going on your off topic. I NEVER NOT ONCE claimed the 2 were the same.

CAN WE have a discussion about the historical JESUS without bringing in the Jesus Deity? I think so..

BUT YOU THE ATHEIST ARE COMBINING THEM TOGETHER.

Strawmaninng again, saying what my argument is and attacking it when my OP has nothing to do with it.

Lmao, I am combining the 2, nope I am not, I am actually the one making sure that everyone understands the difference, since you did such inadequate job of doing so in your OP.

Atheist can't answer one claim honestly. I ask for the case against Jesus existence and all I get is "So whats" and tangent arguments about his divinity.

Seriously why does any one take you guys seriously, when you can't ever back a single claim you make. To much in habit of tearing down others.

If you had paid attention, I actually did make an argument for his existence(the historical jesus,since I believe in one) but then countered with an argument against the existence of the theological Jesus, so that I actually covered both definitions of Jesus in use today. This is whats called cover both ends of a topic.

You and Bulprof just go ahead and bury this thread between you two about the bible as a whole. I'm not interested in discussing stuff with you. You saw what you wanted, got on a soap box and made accusations.

Atheist MO. no supporting claims just shift subject obscure and accuse. You think you have participated in a rational discussion you have not.

I still haven't seen any logical reasoning for any one to claim Jesus didn't exist.

Did you see either of us deny the existence of jesus?
Why do you just go off on an irrational rant that is meaningless within the discussion in hand.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin