That isn't what I asked (which you are well aware of, so I am done with you on this thread) there no sense in debating someone who has not or will not take a position.eisenreich said:
ARCHIVE: Knight and Lion from TOL are Back to Answer Your Questions
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Until you can determine what makes you believe someone existed, my (silly) evidence is still miles above your "I don't know".allsmiles said:
How in the world could anyone admit "I don't know why I believe certain people existed"??? :kookoo: It's beyond asinine!
If ever in my life I become that brainless please somebody put me out of my misery.
allsmiles
New member
BillyBob said:
My bad. You must have a doozey.
You're right, I was too impatient. I'll wait for your mind blowingly awesome evidence for the existence of Christ in our historical timeline.
Knight, this is what I've been asking. "Is belief in Jesus evidence for his existence". Do you get it now or are you gunna keep playing the stupid card in the hopes that I'll give you a golden opportunity to ban me?
Here, I'll make it easy:
:loser:
BB, this is the worst, most untenable scrap of pathetic garbage you could have dropped at my feet.
You call me smarmy as though that's worse than machismo :chuckle:
A complete and utter lack of evidence to support his existence, Paul's description of Christ as being a quickening spirit who takes form only in revelatory visions as well as his descriptions following the formula of Hellenized dying and resurrecting god men. Also the obviousness of the mythological nature of the story of Christ in general. Open the Bible and find any Jesus story you'd like and I'll take fifteen seconds out of my busy day to mock you for believing a fairy tale.
That's a start.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
To be fair now, allsmiles, shouldn't we automatically reject all historical references to anyone you mention? Or at least the 4 most important references? You should be forced to prove Sun Tzu's existance using purely extra-stuff-sun-tzu-wrote sources. Because if someone were trying to trick us into believing in Sun Tzu, of course 'The Art of War' is going to claim Sun Tzu wrote it.
truthteller86
New member
AS, here's another irony for you. The people you think love you really hate you and vice versa. See: TOL motto. Since I posted this to RealSorceror in another thread, God bless his little red soul, I though of you as well considering your attitude.
truthteller86
New member
Does AS get banned now? I haven't been told that in a while. In fact, I had to think for a minute to actually remember what the letters stood for. :nono:
Last edited:
allsmiles said:
No, just other things going on, like trying to find our FF Commish!
:sozo: Doc!!!
Eh, no big deal, impatience is a part of youth.
I never claimed to have any.
Yeah, that outta do it.
I see, so multiple writings of histoirical historical reference, multiple authors and 2000 years of tradition are meaningless? Got it.
It is.
Paul never met Jesus [nor claimed to], but he knew people who did.
But are we discussing Jesus or Christ, you keep changing terms?
allsmiles
New member
BillyBob said:
:thumb:
Glad to know I'm normal.
Quote some of these writings of historical reference. Find them, show them to me.
Tradition dictates reality? Are you Catholic now? :chuckle:
Find me the passages where Paul references those who have met Christ.
Paul met Christ in a revelatory vision and he never differentiates between his experience and the experience of the "others" you mention.
Doherty would destroy you.
You're afraid.
Knight is shaking in his boots otherwise he would have met this issue head on rather than obfuscate as much as he has.
Good night folks.
I've laughed myself half to death, I need sleep.
allsmiles said:
There are the Gospels in the Bible as well as the Gnostic Gospels. They all reference Jesus.
No, but I'm weighing all the evidence to form a conclusion, tradition is one peice of that evidence.
I'll say again, you keep using the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' interchangably, I thought we were talking about the 'Historical Jesus'.
Paul knew many men who personally had a relationship with Jesus.
Never heard of him/her.
:darwinsm:
I'm not here to discuss what Knight thinks.
Ah, time to 'Cut and Run', eh?
Figures....
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
allsmiles said:
Knight doesn't actually pray, (type his prayer) here at TOL. At least I've never seen him do it and rarely have I ever seen anybody else do it. I think it's better that they don't since that's usually a more personal thing with most people.
But more importantly.... What in the ever lovin' world does that have to do with anything that's being discussed here? :squint:
Do you think that gives you a pass or something?Granite said:
Granite, I wasn't referring to Dougherty; I was referring to you. I remember the kick you were on a while back in which you claimed that the Jesus Paul wrote of was not the same as the Jesus written of in the gospels, that he was more like a Greek god or hero. And you claimed that Paul didn't include any details whatsoever about Jesus' earthly life. Therefore when I read the rebuttal of those claims (which are also made by Jesus-myth folks), I thought of you.
Is this no longer your position?
So tell us: Why are you not totally convinced of Dougherty's argument? What weaknesses do you see in it? What's holding you back (other than maybe the wiggle room you think your "not totally convinced" stance gives you)?
A side note.
A side note.
August is named after Augustus, but October is not.
October got it's name for being the eighth month, just as September had been the seventh month, November had been the ninth month, and December had been the tenth month.
By the way, we have a month named after Julius as well.
A side note.
Knight said:
Knight had been talking about Caesar Augustus all along.Granite said:
August is named after Augustus, but October is not.
October got it's name for being the eighth month, just as September had been the seventh month, November had been the ninth month, and December had been the tenth month.
By the way, we have a month named after Julius as well.
I'll see your biography and raise you three. Four biographies by the subject's contemporaries, whose accounts corroborate, is much more reliable than a lone biographer's dubious work from a century after the subject's death. ("...if he did die...")eisenreich said:
I can't find any symphonies that Apollonius wrote. Maybe that is evidence that he didn't exist. Or maybe we just hold him to a "lower standard of evidence" than we do folks like Beethoven and Mozart.
eisenreich, you're idea of what is meant by "similar evidence" goes a bit too far. Similar does not mean identical. Jesus was not an author, but he did have a public ministry which was written of by his closest friends (John, Peter) and family (James, Jude).
Of course, the Apollonius-myth folks would dismiss the books and treatises supposedly written by Apollonius as forgeries. And of course we cannot trust the so-called "biography" written by Philostratus who had not even been born during Apollonius (supposed) lifetime. From your wiki entry:
He is best known through the medium of the writer Philostratus, in whose biography some have seen an attempt to construct a rival to Jesus Christ; its peripatetic narrative structure is built upon a series of instructive dialogues and the sage's responses to places and events.
... Philostratus keeps up the mystery of his hero's life by saying, "Concerning the manner of his death, if he did die, the accounts are various."
Philostratus's biography contains a number of obviously fictitious stories, such as his mot upon the Colossus of Rhodes, long gone by the time of his birth; through them, however, it is possible to discern Apollonius's general character.
... Philostratus keeps up the mystery of his hero's life by saying, "Concerning the manner of his death, if he did die, the accounts are various."
Philostratus's biography contains a number of obviously fictitious stories, such as his mot upon the Colossus of Rhodes, long gone by the time of his birth; through them, however, it is possible to discern Apollonius's general character.
The narrative of Apollonius's travels, as they are reported by Philostratus on the basis of Damis, is so full of the miraculous that, in the words of Edward Gibbon, "we are at a loss to discover whether he was a sage, an impostor, or a fanatic."
...or a myth. :shocked:
I have already mentioned the four Gospel accounts as well as the epistles by John, Peter, James, and Jude.allsmiles said:
And maybe you missed my earlier mention of the last section of Wikipedia's Jesus as myth article:
| Criticism of the theory As with any theory, the Jesus Myth idea has several major criticisms. This does not distinguish it from the Jesus as Christ idea, which has an even more significant number of criticisms against it. · The majority of scholarship believes there was a historical Jesus.[32] The reason scholars give is that for an ancient person and event, there are a relative plethora (by ancient historical standards) of sources from the same century. · Celsus, a first century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer. He never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.[33] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man."[34] Furthermore, there is debate whether Suetonius, who wrote in the second century, made reference to Christianity existing in 41 CE, though the majority of scholars believe that the reference cannot be interpreted in this fashion.[35] Lastly, there are passages of debatable significance from the historian Tacitus and satirist Lucian of Samosata, which credit "Christ" as the founder of Christianity.[36] · Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholarship. According to a Christian apologist, Michael Licona, has summed up the viewpoint of this era's historiography: Most scholars have abandoned the religionsgeschichtliche or what was known as the “history of religions” school that regarded parallels as conclusive signs that Christianity was cut from the same cloth as ancient myth. Further research has revealed that many of the parallels to which they refer postdate the Gospels.[37] · Through cultural diffusion it would have been natural for Jesus and/or his followers within a Hellenized Judea to incorporate the philosophy and sentiment of Epicureanism, Stoicism, Platonism/proto-Gnosticism, and mystery cults.[38] The ideas that these belief systems brought concerning the afterlife, presence of the divine, and wisdom were incorporated into Judaism for several centuries before Jesus and can be found in the Old Testament. · Proponents of the Jesus Myth disagree with the notion that the apostle Paul did speak of Jesus as a physical being. This is largely an argument from silence. Furthermore, it is slightly a distortion, because the Apostle Paul contradicts this viewpoint. He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh"[39], took "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form,"[40]. Paul also states that " God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."[41] and "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being."[42] Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times[43] in the Epistles. Scholars believe that the apostle Paul did not quote Jesus more often, because he took for granted that Christians knew what Jesus said. Jesus Myth proponents believe this is a weak argument from silence. · The Epistle to the Hebrews is debatably an early source, which some, but not all, scholars put before 70 CE. Their reasoning is that the Epistle makes mention of animal sacrifice, which was a practice that fell out of favor in Judaism after the destruction of the temple. In Hebrews, Jesus is mentioned several times in physical form[44] and even speaks.[45] |
A recap...
A recap...
I'm glad eisenreich wasn't so cowardly. Although, he hadn't fully painted himself into the Jesus-never-existed corner either, so there was less at stake for him.
A recap...
Turbo said:
Knight said:
allsmiles said:
Knight said:
allsmiles said:
Knight said:
Knight has been asking for you to give an example of what sort of evidence you typically find to be sufficient to conclude that a given person existed some 2000 years ago, and you utterly refuse. And we all know why. You've skipped ahead, curling up into the fetal position earlier into this volley than I had expected.allsmiles said:
I'm glad eisenreich wasn't so cowardly. Although, he hadn't fully painted himself into the Jesus-never-existed corner either, so there was less at stake for him.
Turbo said:
:rotfl:
You kill me, you really do. Is this your latest anti-Granite tirade? Because you and some other folks here seem to come and go in cycles.
Paul doesn't include biographical details of Jesus' life, since you mention it. No virgin birth, no Mary, no Bethlehem. (Oddly enough this is what you'd expect from someone writing about a "messiah" he knew next to nothing about. Huh.) And Paul, I believe, presented a Christ very much at odds with the Jesus of the gospels. Thanks for reducing my opinions to a "kick." How very patronizing of you.
I don't believe the strength of the story can be based completely on mythology or pure invention; there is truth to any propaganda. I believe the Jesus myth is likely based on one or more individuals who created a Christ character.
- Status