Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed

Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed

http://listverse.com...

1.) The Crucifixion

For all his reported ability to kill things with the power of words, Gospels" Jesus is basically the Aquaman of Biblical figures. Compared to, say, King David, his awesomeness-to-piousness ratio is sadly lacking. And that"s important, because the Messiah was prophesied to be a warrior king who would flush the scum out of Jerusalem and bring about God"s kingdom on Earth. By contrast, Jesus rides around on a donkey and is executed before he can get anything done. Remember the criterion of embarrassment? In the first century, crucifixion was a humiliating way to die. Anyone writing Jesus from the ground up would have had him go out in a one-on-one fistfight with Julius Caesar or something. As scholar Bart Ehrman puts it: "The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified." Basically, early Christians were so embarrassed by the crucifixion they did everything they could to turn it into a victory. Hell, they probably wished they had just made him up"it would"ve saved them all a lot of trouble.

2.) Modern Religion

Despite most of the "big ones" having been around for centuries, new religions are always cropping up. Mormonism, Scientology, Rastafarianism, cults like The Manson Family or North Korea"s creepy "Kim" cult" and nearly all of them have one thing in common: they stem from a single, real individual. By contrast, movements with no grounding in reality whatsoever are much rarer. And sociologists have noticed this. By tracing how modern religions grow, they can make assumptions about their older cousins"including the importance of having a living, breathing figurehead. Think about it. It"s a lot easier to get people onboard your new movement if they can see your leader is an actual person and not, y"know, completely made up. But even if you don"t accept the logic of that, it"s worth remembering how utterly alien Jesus"s teachings were compared to any other branch of first century Judaism. Such a great mental leap had to come from someone, somewhere so Paul could get so fired up about it ten years later. For all intents and purposes, you might as well call that "someone" Jesus.

3.) The Ossuary

If you"re above a certain age, you might remember the 2001 discovery of an ancient bone box inscribed with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." For those of you that aren"t"you should know that the world went nuts. Here was undeniable proof of Jesus"s historical existence. Then, in 2004, Israeli police arrested the Tel Aviv collector who found it on suspicion of forgery. So much for that, huh?

Not exactly. Last year, an Israeli court threw out the case when it became apparent most of the "expert witnesses" were either lying or just plain wrong. The "smoking gun" was a fake inscription that turned out to be nothing of the sort, and more tests are now being done to figure out (again) if the box is genuine. Now, we still currently don"t know if it"s real"only that it"s not a deliberate, modern fake. But if it turns out to be the real deal, it could yet prove to be the most important religious find of the century.

4.) Tacitus

Tacitus was the Roman equivalent of The History Channel and National Geographic all rolled into one brainy, cynical guy. Over a stupefying number of books, his Annals describe life under Tiberius, Nero and other lunatics, while also dealing with day-to-day existence in Rome. Significantly, that includes the period surrounding the Great Fire. For those of you who hate clicking on links, the important bit goes:

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

That"s the first reliable account of the crucifixion in history. Although he doesn"t cite his source, Tacitus had access to a heck-load of official documents and almost always noted when he was using hearsay. Since everyone but the most-insane of scholars accept this passage as genuine, it establishes the crucifixion as a historical event"one widely known even by A.D. 64. Furthermore, recently physical evidence was found proving the existence and presence of Pilate just where the Gospels say he was.

5.) Josephus

Josephus was a 1st century Roman-Jewish historian who"s most-famous passage is the Testimonium Flavianum"an "early" reference to Christ that"s probably a fake. So why bring him up at all? Well, Josephus"s works also include a much less-famous passage that"s definitely genuine. Buried deep in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews is a passing reference to the execution of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". That"s as far as it goes. But, like Paul above, it confirms the historical existence of James and therefore Jesus. And it"s almost universally acknowledged to be genuine"here"s the world"s leading scholar on Josephus explaining why it couldn"t be a fake. It might tell us very little, but it at least gives us a starting point"especially when combined with stuff like:

6.) The Baptism

Like a birthplace in the sticks, the Baptism is another feature of Jesus" story that doesn"t tally with Biblical prophecy. At the time, the idea of a spiritually inferior person baptizing a superior one was completely unheard of. Having the messiah baptized by anyone would be seen more as humiliation than humility. Nowadays, we see it as an early sign that Jesus was the humble guy he later turned out to be"but in ancient Judea, that would"ve been a hard sell. A writer looking to recruit people to his newly made-up church would have probably had Jesus flying over the river, shooting fire and doing backflips while giving John the finger. The fact it"s such a step down for the "son of God" suggests it"s probably based in fact"even if it"s been distorted in the centuries since.

7.) Contradictions

I"ve mentioned before how the Gospels kinda don"t agree on anything. Some see this as the final nail in historical-Jesus"s coffin; but for others, these screw-ups point in exactly the opposite direction. Take the Gospel of Mark"several times, Mark quite clearly states that Jesus came from Nazareth. A few decades later, Luke and Matthew decide, nu-uh, Bethlehem is where it started. Trouble is, there"s no historical record of anything they say happened there"the census, the slaughter of the innocents"ever, well, happening. On the other hand, there does exist an ancient prophecy saying the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Not exactly subtle, is it? However, these shenanigans actually give more credence to Mark"s account. It"s called the criterion of embarrassment"basically, the idea that you"d be unlikely to make up something that makes you look bad. Since Nazareth is the "wrong" town for Jesus to come from, Mark would"ve claimed a fictional Jesus came from Bethlehem. That he didn"t suggests his writing was at least grounded in reality.
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counterintuitive, but it"s not as insane as it might first appear. For one thing, Paul"s letters are the earliest writings on Christianity, predating the Gospels by some fifty years. Also, we know he existed. Textual analysis of the epistles proves at least seven of them were written by one guy; and Paul"s historic efforts to open the new church to gentiles are the main reason you"re not reading this in, say, Hebrew. But the biggest thing Paul has going in his favor is his ego. Rather than detail the life story of Jesus, Paul prefers talking about himself"including descriptions of his conversion and travels. Travels which, by the way, include two brief meetings with Jesus" brother James. Since James" existence would have been objectively verifiable to Paul"s readers, the likelihood he made him up is somewhere around "zero""especially since both meetings seem to go quite badly.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The existence of a man who went through the trial of crucifixion of which there were countless, because the Roman state considered him a threat is probably common place in those times.

The claim that this one man was the son of God is a completely different thing.

Can you prove that, instead?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 10:03:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 9:22:18 PM, Bendido wrote:
8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed

http://listverse.com...

1.) The Crucifixion

The warrior messiah was there because the belief that New Jerusalem would be on Earth. After the fall of the Jewish temple it made more sense for there to be an apocalyptic messiah, and that is what Jesus is. With a change in times comes a change in desired characters. There isn't even good evidence that Jesus was crucified (let alone if he lived).

2.) Modern Religion

Almost every ancient religion was based around fictional characters. Even cargo cults today are. This point is complete crap from a historical perspective.

3.) The Ossuary

Joseph, Jesus, and James were all common names.
Oh, also:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...

4.) Tacitus

And as Richard Carrier pointed out in "On the Historicity of Jesus" Tacitus did not have access to reliable information, only information from what Christians said.

Another point is that what he wrote about the Neronian fires (which is also sometimes used to try and prove Jesus existed) contradicts with Pliny the Elder (who was an actual eye-witness).

5.) Josephus

One of Josephus's passages was almost certainly a forgery. The other is almost certainly an interpolation.
The interpolation here is the part that says "who was called Christ". And it was an accidental interpolation that entered manuscripts sometime in the late third century.
One reason for this position is that Origen never quotes this passage, and shows no knowledge of this passage as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works of Josephus. The first person to quote the passage we have is Eusebius (by the way, a known forger).
The original text probably read, "the brother of Jesus, the name for whom was James, and some others" OR "the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, the name for whom was James, and some others" (Jesus the son of Damneus is actually mentioned later in the same passage).
It was probably incorporating (accidentally) a Christian marginal or interlinear note (by insertion or replacement, to correct what a later copyist mistook as an error), changing the passage.
Reasoning for this position is as follows:
1) The words and structure chosen here are ones that would commonly be used in an interlinear note. In fact, if it was written by Josephus, we would expect him to clarify. Why was Jesus called "Christ"? What does the word mean? This passage was not written for Jews or Christians, it was written for the Romans.
2) There is no stated reason for either Jesus or Christ to be mentioned at all, which would not be expected if it was written by Josephus since he usually expands on these types of things.
3) The story as we have it makes no sense. No basis is mentioned for the execution, which Josephus would write about. It also says that many Jews were outraged by the execution of James and that they wanted Ananus punished, which makes no sense since the Jews and Christians did not get along. In fact, since this was written for a Roman audience, Josephus would actually explain things better here as well.
4) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, and if this did happen it almost certainly would have been included in Acts.
For more reasons, read "On the Historicity" by Richard Carrier.

6.) The Baptism

This is a huge assertion that you cannot even get close to backing up, especially when mystery cults from around the same time had their saviors (none of which were historical) doing things that were humble. I could go further with this, but I see no need to.

7.) Contradictions

This point doesn't even make sense. How does that solidify a historical Jesus? Do you even understand how history works? Why are many of the cities that are talked about in the Gospels fictional? There are so many fictional places in the Gospels that it would not be surprising for the birthplace to also be a fictional area.
https://www.youtube.com...

I swear, you have no idea what you are talking about, you think that just copying and pasting what someone else says is "good enough", but it isn't, not even close.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 10:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.

While I'm in no way defending or condoning this religious spam, I would like to point out at least one passage where Paul quotes an historic Jesus:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Now, it can be argued that Paul made this up, as it can be found no where in the four gospels. Or it's just one more of those copy of a copy of a copy errors. But whatever the case, Paul does, in fact, refer to an earthly Jesus.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 10:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 10:03:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:18 PM, Bendido wrote:
8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed

http://listverse.com...

1.) The Crucifixion

The warrior messiah was there because the belief that New Jerusalem would be on Earth. After the fall of the Jewish temple it made more sense for there to be an apocalyptic messiah, and that is what Jesus is. With a change in times comes a change in desired characters. There isn't even good evidence that Jesus was crucified (let alone if he lived).

Tacitus' "Annals". Also if he was crucified then he lived.

2.) Modern Religion

Almost every ancient religion was based around fictional characters. Even cargo cults today are. This point is complete crap from a historical perspective.

In the early history of Christianity all Churches based themselves around Jesus. If Jesus were just invented they would have all come up with different names for the Messiah like the cargo cults did.

3.) The Ossuary

Joseph, Jesus, and James were all common names.
Oh, also:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...

citing jesusneverexisted.com? I'm sure there are unbiased views all over that site!

4.) Tacitus

And as Richard Carrier pointed out in "On the Historicity of Jesus" Tacitus did not have access to reliable information, only information from what Christians said.

Carrier is wrong. Tacitus regularly corresponded with the Roman Emperor at the time and was part of groups that researched heretical religions like Christianity, which included people who had access to records of the people the Roman Empire had killed.

Another point is that what he wrote about the Neronian fires (which is also sometimes used to try and prove Jesus existed) contradicts with Pliny the Elder (who was an actual eye-witness).

Two eyewitnesses having different perspectives on a giant fire? Impossible!

5.) Josephus

One of Josephus's passages was almost certainly a forgery.

Most historical evidence shows it was not entirely a forgery and certainly referenced Jesus.

The other is almost certainly an interpolation.

The interpolation here is the part that says "who was called Christ". And it was an accidental interpolation that entered manuscripts sometime in the late third century.
One reason for this position is that Origen never quotes this passage, and shows no knowledge of this passage as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works of Josephus. The first person to quote the passage we have is Eusebius (by the way, a known forger).
The original text probably read, "the brother of Jesus, the name for whom was James, and some others" OR "the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, the name for whom was James, and some others" (Jesus the son of Damneus is actually mentioned later in the same passage).
It was probably incorporating (accidentally) a Christian marginal or interlinear note (by insertion or replacement, to correct what a later copyist mistook as an error), changing the passage.
Reasoning for this position is as follows:
1) The words and structure chosen here are ones that would commonly be used in an interlinear note. In fact, if it was written by Josephus, we would expect him to clarify. Why was Jesus called "Christ"? What does the word mean? This passage was not written for Jews or Christians, it was written for the Romans.
2) There is no stated reason for either Jesus or Christ to be mentioned at all, which would not be expected if it was written by Josephus since he usually expands on these types of things.
3) The story as we have it makes no sense. No basis is mentioned for the execution, which Josephus would write about. It also says that many Jews were outraged by the execution of James and that they wanted Ananus punished, which makes no sense since the Jews and Christians did not get along. In fact, since this was written for a Roman audience, Josephus would actually explain things better here as well.
4) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, and if this did happen it almost certainly would have been included in Acts.
For more reasons, read "On the Historicity" by Richard Carrier.

6.) The Baptism

This is a huge assertion that you cannot even get close to backing up, especially when mystery cults from around the same time had their saviors (none of which were historical) doing things that were humble. I could go further with this, but I see no need to.

7.) Contradictions

This point doesn't even make sense. How does that solidify a historical Jesus? Do you even understand how history works? Why are many of the cities that are talked about in the Gospels fictional? There are so many fictional places in the Gospels that it would not be surprising for the birthplace to also be a fictional area.
https://www.youtube.com...

I swear, you have no idea what you are talking about, you think that just copying and pasting what someone else says is "good enough", but it isn't, not even close.

You think that just copying what Richard Carrier says is good enough, but it isn't, not even close, because Richard Carrier is an atheist activist and is clearly not going to be imparital in this area of historical study.
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:08:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 10:46:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.

While I'm in no way defending or condoning this religious spam, I would like to point out at least one passage where Paul quotes an historic Jesus:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Now, it can be argued that Paul made this up, as it can be found no where in the four gospels. Or it's just one more of those copy of a copy of a copy errors. But whatever the case, Paul does, in fact, refer to an earthly Jesus.

Acts wasn't written by Paul.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.

WRONG: you are innocent of the bible...WHY:

Take Note:
Paul also called Saul

Acts 13:9
9.Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Acts 9:1-6,17

1.Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest
2.and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3.As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4.He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5."Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.
6."Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

17.Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:26:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 10:51:06 PM, PolyCarp wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:03:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The warrior messiah was there because the belief that New Jerusalem would be on Earth. After the fall of the Jewish temple it made more sense for there to be an apocalyptic messiah, and that is what Jesus is. With a change in times comes a change in desired characters. There isn't even good evidence that Jesus was crucified (let alone if he lived).

Tacitus' "Annals". Also if he was crucified then he lived.

I don't agree that he was crucified though. I was explaining why his point was stupid.

Almost every ancient religion was based around fictional characters. Even cargo cults today are. This point is complete crap from a historical perspective.

In the early history of Christianity all Churches based themselves around Jesus. If Jesus were just invented they would have all come up with different names for the Messiah like the cargo cults did.

The cargo cults are different "religions", Christianity is not. The start of Christianity would propose Jesus as a historical figure and the other branches branch off from there. Also, many other people through history claimed to have been the Jewish messiah. Other Jewish messiahs were also invented. They have nothing to do with Christianity.

Joseph, Jesus, and James were all common names.
Oh, also:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...

citing jesusneverexisted.com? I'm sure there are unbiased views all over that site!

I cited a biased cite only because of who I was addressing. Otherwise I would have cited one of the other sources where it talks about how we cannot confirm if the box is actually legit or not.

And as Richard Carrier pointed out in "On the Historicity of Jesus" Tacitus did not have access to reliable information, only information from what Christians said.

Carrier is wrong. Tacitus regularly corresponded with the Roman Emperor at the time and was part of groups that researched heretical religions like Christianity, which included people who had access to records of the people the Roman Empire had killed.

Except that there is good reason for why Tacitus is not accurate in this part and good reason for why he didn't have access to any Roman documents about it, if they existed at all.
Second century Christian writing (outside of Tacitus) makes any reference of this event as a persecution of Christians.
And, assuming that this document hasn't been tampered with (which can be debated as well), it is unlikely that he got this information from government records because:
1) His report does not include distinctive information that would have been expected in an official report
2) Tacitus would have no reason to look through countless documents to find one embarrassing anecdote that Christians were admitting to.
3) It would be unlikely that such documents would have survived with the libraries of Rome having been burned down twice between the time of the fires and when Tacitus started writing this.

Another point is that what he wrote about the Neronian fires (which is also sometimes used to try and prove Jesus existed) contradicts with Pliny the Elder (who was an actual eye-witness).

Two eyewitnesses having different perspectives on a giant fire? Impossible!

Except that anyone that knows anything about Tacitus and the Neronian fires knows that Tacitus wasn't anything close to an eye-witness.

One of Josephus's passages was almost certainly a forgery.

Most historical evidence shows it was not entirely a forgery and certainly referenced Jesus.

No, it certainly does not.
http://www.examiner.com...

The other is almost certainly an interpolation.

The interpolation here is the part that says "who was called Christ". And it was an accidental interpolation that entered manuscripts sometime in the late third century.
One reason for this position is that Origen never quotes this passage, and shows no knowledge of this passage as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works of Josephus. The first person to quote the passage we have is Eusebius (by the way, a known forger).
The original text probably read, "the brother of Jesus, the name for whom was James, and some others" OR "the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, the name for whom was James, and some others" (Jesus the son of Damneus is actually mentioned later in the same passage).
It was probably incorporating (accidentally) a Christian marginal or interlinear note (by insertion or replacement, to correct what a later copyist mistook as an error), changing the passage.
Reasoning for this position is as follows:
1) The words and structure chosen here are ones that would commonly be used in an interlinear note. In fact, if it was written by Josephus, we would expect him to clarify. Why was Jesus called "Christ"? What does the word mean? This passage was not written for Jews or Christians, it was written for the Romans.
2) There is no stated reason for either Jesus or Christ to be mentioned at all, which would not be expected if it was written by Josephus since he usually expands on these types of things.
3) The story as we have it makes no sense. No basis is mentioned for the execution, which Josephus would write about. It also says that many Jews were outraged by the execution of James and that they wanted Ananus punished, which makes no sense since the Jews and Christians did not get along. In fact, since this was written for a Roman audience, Josephus would actually explain things better here as well.
4) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, and if this did happen it almost certainly would have been included in Acts.
For more reasons, read "On the Historicity" by Richard Carrier.

6.) The Baptism

This is a huge assertion that you cannot even get close to backing up, especially when mystery cults from around the same time had their saviors (none of which were historical) doing things that were humble. I could go further with this, but I see no need to.

7.) Contradictions

This point doesn't even make sense. How does that solidify a historical Jesus? Do you even understand how history works? Why are many of the cities that are talked about in the Gospels fictional? There are so many fictional places in the Gospels that it would not be surprising for the birthplace to also be a fictional area.
https://www.youtube.com...

I swear, you have no idea what you are talking about, you think that just copying and pasting what someone else says is "good enough", but it isn't, not even close.

You think that just copying what Richard Carrier says is good enough, but it isn't, not even close, because Richard Carrier is an atheist activist and is clearly not going to be imparital in this area of historical study.

Except that not all of this is what Richard Carrier says. I was just using his work the most because I am more familiar with his stuff (and I have notes about his stuff from some debates I have done). Also, considering how Richard Carrier was just as much of an "atheist activist" when he advocated FOR a historical Jesus (before he started research into the subject), your objection is laughable (unless you are saying that his atheist activism is advocating the Jesus myth, in which would only mean you are biased in the subject).

How about D.M. Murdock who also advocates for a non-historical Jesus?

Or how about Price?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:28:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:17:42 PM, Bendido wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.

WRONG: you are innocent of the bible...WHY:

Take Note:
Paul also called Saul

Acts 13:9
9.Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,


Acts 9:1-6,17

1.Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest
2.and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3.As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4.He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5."Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.
6."Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

17.Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Yes, except that Acts was not written by Paul. Unless, of course, you are also saying that Paul wrote Luke (which I think a case can be made that Luke was written in the latter half of the 2nd century).

Also, the Jesus you are talking about in that would be a celestial Jesus that Paul had revelation about, not a historical one.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:28:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:17:42 PM, Bendido wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.

WRONG: you are innocent of the bible...WHY:

Take Note:
Paul also called Saul

Acts 13:9
9.Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,


Acts 9:1-6,17

1.Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest
2.and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3.As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4.He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5."Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.
6."Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

17.Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Yes, except that Acts was not written by Paul. Unless, of course, you are also saying that Paul wrote Luke (which I think a case can be made that Luke was written in the latter half of the 2nd century).

Also, the Jesus you are talking about in that would be a celestial Jesus that Paul had revelation about, not a historical one.

2 Corinthians 12:1-4

1.I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.
2.I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
3.And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--
4.
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Galatians 1:11-12

11.I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:44:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:40:44 PM, Bendido wrote:
2 Corinthians 12:1-4

1.I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.
2.I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
3.And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--
4.
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Key words here is that he is getting this through REVELATION. No historical Jesus here. It is also talking about what is in the heavens.

Galatians 1:11-12

11.I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

He says he received it from Jesus through REVELATION. This does not put Jesus as a historical figure.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:44:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:40:44 PM, Bendido wrote:
2 Corinthians 12:1-4

1.I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.
2.I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
3.And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--
4.
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Key words here is that he is getting this through REVELATION. No historical Jesus here. It is also talking about what is in the heavens.

Galatians 1:11-12

11.I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

He says he received it from Jesus through REVELATION. This does not put Jesus as a historical figure.

dont you notice that...Paul was caught up to paradise...where is Jesus?
Luke 23:43
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:49:54 PM, Bendido wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:44:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:40:44 PM, Bendido wrote:
2 Corinthians 12:1-4

1.I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.
2.I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
3.And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--
4.
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Key words here is that he is getting this through REVELATION. No historical Jesus here. It is also talking about what is in the heavens.

Galatians 1:11-12

11.I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

He says he received it from Jesus through REVELATION. This does not put Jesus as a historical figure.

dont you notice that...Paul was caught up to paradise...where is Jesus?
Luke 23:43
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

1) This is not talking about a historical Jesus
2) Just because someone says something is true doesn't make it so, especially when someone says they learned it trough revelation.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:24:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree he existed but if you want an actual discussion about this you should probably limit it to one piece of evidence at a time so we can all actually learn something from this.

Can you start another thread maybe we can all dig into Josephus together. This is a huge subject and we really got to break this stuff down for an intelligent back and forth.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:47:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Beidido and Polycarp,

Everything that SNP1 says in response to your so called "8 reasons" is based on real historical research from scholars focusing on ancient history and religious studies.

SO WHAT if SNP1 quotes Carrier - he is one of the few historians with actual peer reviewed material looking at whether or not the corner stones of Christianity (including Christ's existence) can be verified with something other than the Judeo-Christian bible. Calling him an "atheist" as reason to dismiss SNP1 (and Carriers' research) is an ad hominem attack and not being intellectually honest.

Provide any historical scholars' research which provides outside evidence for the existence of Christ AS PORTRAYED in the bible (including his virgin birth, miracles, death and resurrection) and explain the incredible coincidence that Osiris, Zalmoxis and Romulus (all rising and dying gods before Christ) have almost the exact some history to that of Christ.

I suggest you start researching the Hellenistic period and cargo cults, then look at Jewish history and syncretism before you continue to support claims that the Christian doctrine and all its intricate details are original.

And PLEASE stop quoting the bible as proof of it's contents authenticity. This is just a logical fallacy of circular reasoning and does not further or better your position.
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 1:00:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheist always ignore the truth of the bible the authenticity of bible:

The Polynesians were thought to be the first to discover the use and manufacturing of sugar and spread it to India. As early as 510 B.C., emperor Darius of Persia invaded India where he found "the reed which gives honey without bees." The Arabs, who invaded Persia in 642 A.D., have learned how sugar was made and have expanded sugar productions in other lands. Sugar, practically, had affected the political and economic landscape of the entire globe. HISTORY FOLLOWS.

After more than two thousand five hundred years; and more than six hundred generations of people, India has the highest rate of diabetes estimated to be 41 million people as of 2007; followed by China with 39.8 million and USA with 19.2 million. This is the truth!

Here are just some of the dangers of eating sugar

(taken from: http://www.angelfire.com...)
1.Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against infectious disease.
2.Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in your body: causes chromium and copper deficiencies and interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
3.Sugar can cause can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline, hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.
4.Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.
5.Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function.
6.Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.
7.Sugar can weaken eyesight.
8.Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointestinal tract including: an acidic digestive tract, indigestion, malabsorption in patients with functional bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn"s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
9.Sugar can cause premature aging.
10.Sugar can lead to alcoholism.
11.Sugar can cause your saliva to become acidic, tooth decay, and periodontal disease.
12.Sugar contributes to obesity.
13.Sugar can cause autoimmune diseases such as: arthritis, asthma, multiple sclerosis.
14.Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections)
15.Sugar can cause gallstones
16.Sugar can cause appendicitis.
17.Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.
18.Sugar can cause varicose veins
19.Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.
20.Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
21.Sugar can cause a decrease in your insulin sensitivity thereby causing an abnormally high insulin levels and eventually diabetes
22.Sugar can lower your Vitamin E levels.
23.Sugar can increase your systolic blood pressure.
24.Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
25.High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs)(Sugar molecules attaching to and thereby damaging proteins in the body).

The Bible tells us the "absolute truth" even before 510 B.C. when the Indians have started using cane sugar as a sweetener. The book of Proverbs, which was written in 716 B.C., 24:13 and 25:16 says that honey in the proper amount is good. It is the truth that not even the wealth, fame, and political power that the sugar industry has earned, can not refute! In recent findings in science, honey was found to be helpful in the following:
1.Honey contains vitamins B1, B2, C, B6, B5 and B3 " all of which change according to the qualities of the nectar and the pollen. It also has small amounts of copper, zinc, and iodine. Several kinds of hormones are also present in honey.
2.It is composed of sugars like glucose and fructose and minerals like magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium chlorine, sulphur, iron and phosphate.
3.The antimicrobial properties of honey are good for sore throats as they sooth raw tissues.
4.Honey promotes the rehydration of the body and more quickly clears up diarrhea and any vomiting and stomach upsets.
5.Honey may also help in ulcers.
6.Honey is a good source of anti-oxidants; and helps prevents the development of cancer and heart disease.
7.Low calorie level as that of sugar. Although it gives a lot of energy to the body, it does not add weight unlike sugar.
8.Honey is a wonderful beauty aid that nourishes the skin and the hair because of its vitamins, minerals, and amino acid contents.
9.Honey acts as an anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent and helps disinfects and speeds the healing process in wounds, scrapes, and burns.
10.Honey provides energy for the body in the process of blood formation. It also cleanses the blood; and helps in blood circulation. It also functions as a protection against capillary problems and arteriosclerosis.

Would anybody dare to refute this truth? To the enemies of the Bible, SPEAK THAT YOU MAY BE HEARD AND BE JUSTIFIED; OR BE FOUND TO BE FOOLS AND IGNORAMUSES.

bees_hivebeetlemed.jpg

The Bible has an ancient health giving sweetener. Honey is part of God"s blessings to his chosen people " the Israelites. Before they were liberated out of Egypt, God promised to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey. Literally, this is the land of Canaan, where before they were born is that land where the Patriarch Abraham and Lot have lived. This is the land where they have grown prosperously with their flock that necessitates [necessitated] Abraham and Lot to part ways because of the increasing number of their herds

(Genesis 13:7-9) "And there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram"s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot"s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left. And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom."

This land was the land promised by God to the Israelites where He intended to guide and bless His people. It is a land said to be flowing with milk and honey. A curios mind may notice, why not a land of gold? Or a land flowing with oil, like the Arabian Desert?

Milk and honey are both complete healthy food. The latter for adults; and the former for babes. While it is not good for a babe to take honey, equally and scientifically, it is not good for the adult to subsist in milk. Honey is recommended by the word of God for adults.

(PROVERBS 25:16) "Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it."

It must be understood that only an adult can find honey. Scientifically, honey is not good for babes; but it is good for anybody who has the "ability" to find it.

(PROVERBS 24:13) "My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste:"

Time and again, the authenticity of the Bible is being backed up by history and science.Undeniable evidences that man discovers one by one proves the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures even before man have started to use sophisticated equipments and technologies.Indeed, the Bible, which contains the irrefutable words of God, is a unique and divinely inspired book.

How sweet it is!

"How sweet are Your Words to my taste! More than honey to my mouth!"

Proverbs 119:103
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 1:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Of course he existed.
They found a grave with his bones in it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 1:50:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 1:22:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
Of course he existed.
They found a grave with his bones in it.

wrong:

Acts 2:30-31
30.But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31.Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 2:54:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Jesus might have existed, but I bet the less than credible things attributed to him have no basis in fact!
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 3:30:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 1:50:11 AM, Bendido wrote:
At 2/27/2015 1:22:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
Of course he existed.
They found a grave with his bones in it.

wrong:

Acts 2:30-31
30.But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31.Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.

DNA tests prove you wrong.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:35:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:08:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:46:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.

While I'm in no way defending or condoning this religious spam, I would like to point out at least one passage where Paul quotes an historic Jesus:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Now, it can be argued that Paul made this up, as it can be found no where in the four gospels. Or it's just one more of those copy of a copy of a copy errors. But whatever the case, Paul does, in fact, refer to an earthly Jesus.

Acts wasn't written by Paul.

You posted: Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.

In the passage I posted, Paul is talking about an historical Jesus.

Whether Paul wrote Acts or not, or even if it is fictional is irrelevant. Paul speaks about an earthly Jesus, not just a celestial one, in the Bible.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:35:50 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:08:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:46:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.

While I'm in no way defending or condoning this religious spam, I would like to point out at least one passage where Paul quotes an historic Jesus:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Now, it can be argued that Paul made this up, as it can be found no where in the four gospels. Or it's just one more of those copy of a copy of a copy errors. But whatever the case, Paul does, in fact, refer to an earthly Jesus.

Acts wasn't written by Paul.

You posted: Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.

In the passage I posted, Paul is talking about an historical Jesus.

Whether Paul wrote Acts or not, or even if it is fictional is irrelevant. Paul speaks about an earthly Jesus, not just a celestial one, in the Bible.

The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:08:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:35:50 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:08:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:46:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/26/2015 10:06:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/26/2015 9:22:31 PM, Bendido wrote:
8.) Paul"s Epistles

Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.
Paul only says that he learned what he preaches through revelation and scripture.
Paul never connects Jesus to anywhere or to any event on Earth.
Brother of Jesus was used to talk about anyone that was baptized.

While I'm in no way defending or condoning this religious spam, I would like to point out at least one passage where Paul quotes an historic Jesus:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Now, it can be argued that Paul made this up, as it can be found no where in the four gospels. Or it's just one more of those copy of a copy of a copy errors. But whatever the case, Paul does, in fact, refer to an earthly Jesus.

Acts wasn't written by Paul.

You posted: Paul never talks about a historical Jesus, only a celestial one.

In the passage I posted, Paul is talking about an historical Jesus.

Whether Paul wrote Acts or not, or even if it is fictional is irrelevant. Paul speaks about an earthly Jesus, not just a celestial one, in the Bible.

The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).

It is argued that the entire Bible is not historically accurate, or at all true. "Most likely" or not, it cannot be ignored: In the Bible, Paul talks about an historical Jesus. Which is contrary to your statement.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:36:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:08:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).

It is argued that the entire Bible is not historically accurate, or at all true. "Most likely" or not, it cannot be ignored: In the Bible, Paul talks about an historical Jesus. Which is contrary to your statement.

Okay, would it be better as Paul never wrote about a historical Jesus and the only statement in the New Testament that includes Paul talking about a historical Jesus is either forged or historical fiction?

Because under that, historically Paul never talked about a historical Jesus.

To attribute the words from a historical fiction as actual words someone wrote is faulty. Should we also say that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter?

It should have been obvious what my point was.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:03:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:36:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:08:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).

It is argued that the entire Bible is not historically accurate, or at all true. "Most likely" or not, it cannot be ignored: In the Bible, Paul talks about an historical Jesus. Which is contrary to your statement.

Okay, would it be better as Paul never wrote about a historical Jesus and the only statement in the New Testament that includes Paul talking about a historical Jesus is either forged or historical fiction?

Because under that, historically Paul never talked about a historical Jesus.

To attribute the words from a historical fiction as actual words someone wrote is faulty. Should we also say that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter?

It should have been obvious what my point was.

I never claimed the words were historically true. I merely pointed out that they are in the Bible, contrary to your claim that they are not.

If I say that Red Riding Hood is not really going to Grandmother's house, would knowing that the story is fictional change the fact that Red actually is going to Grandmother's house in the story?

You claimed that Paul never talks about an historical Jesus, without being able to prove that such a man ever existed. So, clearly historical accuracy is not pertinent to your statement. Forgive the redundancy, but you are stating that a man, real or fictional, never talks about an historical Jesus. As such, it doesn't matter whether the passage I refer to is historically accurate, historically inaccurate, or just plain never happened at all. Paul talks about an historical Jesus.

Whether something is true or fictional does not apply here. You claim a particular statement does not exist. I showed that it does, in fact, exist. That is the point.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:18:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:03:01 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:36:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:08:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).

It is argued that the entire Bible is not historically accurate, or at all true. "Most likely" or not, it cannot be ignored: In the Bible, Paul talks about an historical Jesus. Which is contrary to your statement.

Okay, would it be better as Paul never wrote about a historical Jesus and the only statement in the New Testament that includes Paul talking about a historical Jesus is either forged or historical fiction?

Because under that, historically Paul never talked about a historical Jesus.

To attribute the words from a historical fiction as actual words someone wrote is faulty. Should we also say that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter?

It should have been obvious what my point was.

I never claimed the words were historically true. I merely pointed out that they are in the Bible, contrary to your claim that they are not.

I never said that Paul isn't attributed to have talked about a historical Jesus, I said that he never actually did.

If I say that Red Riding Hood is not really going to Grandmother's house, would knowing that the story is fictional change the fact that Red actually is going to Grandmother's house in the story?

False analogy.

You claimed that Paul never talks about an historical Jesus, without being able to prove that such a man ever existed. So, clearly historical accuracy is not pertinent to your statement. Forgive the redundancy, but you are stating that a man, real or fictional, never talks about an historical Jesus. As such, it doesn't matter whether the passage I refer to is historically accurate, historically inaccurate, or just plain never happened at all. Paul talks about an historical Jesus.

The way you are addressing it though is a complete insult to the historical method. If you cannot understand the basics of how the historical method works then you shouldn't try and interject in a discussion about history.

Whether something is true or fictional does not apply here. You claim a particular statement does not exist. I showed that it does, in fact, exist. That is the point.

Whether something is fictional or not DOES apply here. If you seriously think that whether a document is fictional or not does not have relevance to the study of actual historical events, then you are an idiot.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:30:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:18:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:03:01 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:36:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:08:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:45:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The problem is that Acts is most likely not historically accurate. It is most likely a historical fiction, which means that what it attributes to Paul can be ignored (unless one can show it as a historically reliable source).

It is argued that the entire Bible is not historically accurate, or at all true. "Most likely" or not, it cannot be ignored: In the Bible, Paul talks about an historical Jesus. Which is contrary to your statement.

Okay, would it be better as Paul never wrote about a historical Jesus and the only statement in the New Testament that includes Paul talking about a historical Jesus is either forged or historical fiction?

Because under that, historically Paul never talked about a historical Jesus.

To attribute the words from a historical fiction as actual words someone wrote is faulty. Should we also say that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter?

It should have been obvious what my point was.

I never claimed the words were historically true. I merely pointed out that they are in the Bible, contrary to your claim that they are not.

I never said that Paul isn't attributed to have talked about a historical Jesus, I said that he never actually did.

Vain finagling.

If I say that Red Riding Hood is not really going to Grandmother's house, would knowing that the story is fictional change the fact that Red actually is going to Grandmother's house in the story?

False analogy.

Poor opinion.

You claimed that Paul never talks about an historical Jesus, without being able to prove that such a man ever existed. So, clearly historical accuracy is not pertinent to your statement. Forgive the redundancy, but you are stating that a man, real or fictional, never talks about an historical Jesus. As such, it doesn't matter whether the passage I refer to is historically accurate, historically inaccurate, or just plain never happened at all. Paul talks about an historical Jesus.

The way you are addressing it though is a complete insult to the historical method. If you cannot understand the basics of how the historical method works then you shouldn't try and interject in a discussion about history.

The historical method doesn't apply here. Just reason and logic.

Whether something is true or fictional does not apply here. You claim a particular statement does not exist. I showed that it does, in fact, exist. That is the point.

Whether something is fictional or not DOES apply here. If you seriously think that whether a document is fictional or not does not have relevance to the study of actual historical events, then you are an idiot.

What historical events? And ad hominem? Very mature.

So, since you believe historical accuracy is relevant to this argument, please tell me which parts of the New Testament you consider historically accurate.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:41:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:30:39 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:18:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I never said that Paul isn't attributed to have talked about a historical Jesus, I said that he never actually did.

Vain finagling.

How? This topic is about placing someone in HISTORY, so the only thing that matters in this regard is what is HISTORICAL.

False analogy.

Poor opinion.

How? This topic is about history, where fabricated statements do not impact the actual words written/said by a certain person.

The way you are addressing it though is a complete insult to the historical method. If you cannot understand the basics of how the historical method works then you shouldn't try and interject in a discussion about history.

The historical method doesn't apply here. Just reason and logic.

This is a topic about history, how doesn't the historical method apply here?
If we are talking about reason and logic, then you are being a moron. What did Paul say? Not what was fabricated about what he said, what did he actually say? Exactly.

Whether something is fictional or not DOES apply here. If you seriously think that whether a document is fictional or not does not have relevance to the study of actual historical events, then you are an idiot.

What historical events? And ad hominem? Very mature.

So, since you believe historical accuracy is relevant to this argument, please tell me which parts of the New Testament you consider historically accurate.

Ad hominem is when someone resorts to insults instead of addressing the points. As I am addressing your points, it isn't an ad hom, it is just me being a d*ck.

Also, we are talking about if Paul talked about a historical Jesus to find out if Jesus was a historical figure or not. That means that we are talking about a historical Paul, what a historical Paul actually said, and if he talked about a historical Jesus. You are going straight to Acts, which has a fabricated version of what he said, making it have no relevance on the actual point being made.

It also does not matter what parts of the NT I consider to be historically accurate. All that matters is identifying which Pauline epistles are forged, which were probably written by Paul (whether the events in them actually happened or not), and identifying Acts as historical fiction.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO