ARCHIVE: Knight and Lion from TOL are Back to Answer Your Questions

[BillyBob]

: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.

Is it my turn yet?

 

[Granite]

Is it my turn yet?

:chuckle:

Fire away!:cheers:

 

[GuySmiley]

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.

You may be on to something here!

 

[eisenreich]

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...")

By contemporaries, do you mean people who walked and talked with Jesus; who spoke and conversed with him? Or by contemporaries, do you mean people who wrote about the figure of Jesus decades after his death? The very earliest you can place Paul's writings is 50 AD, approximately 20 years after Jesus was allegedly put to death. Although obvious but worth noting: Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. These biographies were written by people who had a vested interest in Christianity flourishing and succeeding. The following example may help:

"A man is accused of first-degree murder and his attorney has the choice of putting up two witnesses who will testify that they have an alibi for the man. The choice is either: A. his mother or B. his an ex-girlfriend whom he had cheated on in the past." When asking which would be more convincing, you would obiously say that the bitter ex-girlfriend would be a better choice because she is not biased in the way a mother naturally would be.​

The same is true when demanding secular sources which appear to refer to Jesus Christ, the man. I'm sure you've heard the old chestnut, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"...

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.

Considering there were no videocameras or photographs during that period, the writings individuals leave behind are among the most accurate criterias historians use as evidence.

eisenreich, you're idea of what is meant by "similar evidence" goes a bit too far. Similar does not mean identical.

Thanks for clearing that up. *cough*backpeddling*cough*

 

[allsmiles]

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.

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.

I call it the Jesus Myth argument, not the Caeser Augustus argument or the Sun Tzu argument. Boldface and highlight whatever key words you like, this is theologyonline, I am here to talk about Jesus. You're avoiding what should be an easy challenge to overcome. Instead of simply providing what should be an easy solution to my perceived dilemma you're stalling the discussion with meaningless drivel about defining criteria.

Superficially you seem incredibly confident, but you haven't done a thing to earn the brass you're swinging around here sheriff. Any idiot who looks like John Cusack can buy a web cam and boldface keywords. I boldface keywords for a living. The confidence you project in your self-perceived "rightness" on the subject of Jesus' existence leads me to believe that you have myriad evidence to support your case. The problem is, you're not making a case. Your confidence leads me to believe that you could end this any time you wanted to, but your "argument" is to procrastinate and toy with me.

To me, mixed signals equal confusion. I don't think you have a clue. If you did you would have done something to shut me up by now. You haven't because you can't and if you can and you aren't then you need to grow up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

allsmiles, like I said this whole thing is ludicrous. Not even secular historians buy into it, it's a joke, a waste of time and effort.

Moreover, since you cannot seem to provide us with any rational as to what would compel you to believe that a person (any person) existed, why should we take you seriously?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It kinda boils down to this....

allsmiles: Prove to me Jesus existed.

Knight: What type of evidence would compel you to believe Jesus existed?

allsmiles: No I will not tell you that, just answer my question.

Knight: But how can I know if my effort will be worthwhile if you will not give examples of what you consider to be compelling evidence?

allsmiles: Stop obfuscating and show me your proof!

Knight: :sigh:

 

[allsmiles]

It kinda boils down to this....

Not a bad summary.

allsmiles: Prove to me Jesus existed.

Knight: What type of evidence would compel you to believe Jesus existed?

Find one instance where I demanded you to prove that Jesus existed. I've requested evidence to support your presupposition, not proof. I want to know what compells you to believe that Jesus existed in our historical timeline. So far you've provided none. I've been straightforward in what I would like and I don't understand why the possibility of my concession on the subject is a prerequisite for engaging me. I may look at your evidence and still not believe, all I'm interested in is what evidence you claim to have. I have been unequivocal in this request since the beginning of my involvment in this "discussion".

My belief has nothing to do with this and I'm weary of you trying to use this excuse for not providing what should be obvious and indisputable.

allsmiles: No I will not tell you that, just answer my question.

I'm not going to believe no matter what evidence you provide Knight. I only wish to see it and do my damndest to supply the best antithesis to it that I possibly can. You know nothing of the Jesus Myth argument, that much is apparent. You can only better yourself by learning Knight even though you won't be persuaded just as I won't be persuaded. I only wish to examine, to prod and and to observe.

Knight: But how can I know if my effort will be worthwhile if you will not give examples of what you consider to be compelling evidence?

I'm not here to help you decide how to spend your time Knight. So far you've had no problem wasting your time in mocking me and trying to talk circles around me, I find it hard to believe that you'd consider it a waste of time to provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of your alleged Lord and savior.

allsmiles: Stop obfuscating and show me your proof!

Knight: :sigh:

Again you're misquoting me :yawn: this is really boring. I'm getting sick of waiting for someone with some fire in his heart.

 

[allsmiles]

allsmiles, like I said this whole thing is ludicrous. Not even secular historians buy into it, it's a joke, a waste of time and effort.

That means nothing Knight. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go bunjee jumping off of the edge of the world.

Moreover, since you cannot seem to provide us with any rational as to what would compel you to believe that a person (any person) existed, why should we take you seriously?

:squint:

What?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You know nothing of the Jesus Myth argument, that much is apparent.

I also know very little about the retards that think we didn't actually land on the moon.

 

[jeremiah]

Here is what I have learned from the Jesus myth argument.

1 Denigrate all writings of the New Testament and the early Church Fathers as dubious and a part of the myth. Therefore they are not to be used for evidence.

2. Demand that all secular writers of the time period write about Jesus, and argue that their lack of writing, thus supports the myth position.

3. Take the few mentions of Jesus in the secular writings that survived, and parse every single word, and infuse it with the "proper" meaning. Then what still holds up, claim that it was added by Christians in later centuries.

If you are truly interested in reading about the great obstinance of its proponents here is a good site to start
;
www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Allsmiles, pay particular attention to the rule of parsimony, concerning historical documents.

After reading this article please let us know if you are still leaning towards or away from the Jesus myth position. Thanks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here is what I have learned from the Jesus myth argument.

1 Denigrate all writings of the New Testament and the early Church Fathers as dubious and a part of the myth. Therefore they are not to used for evidence.

2. Demand that all secular writers of the time period write about Jesus, and argue that their lack of writing, thus supports the myth position.

3. Take the few mentions of Jesus in the secular writings that survived, and parse every single word, and infuse it with the "proper" meaning. Then what still holds up, claim that it was added by Christians in later centuries.

If you are truly interested in reading about the great obstinance of its proponents here is a good site to start
;
www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Allsmiles, pay particular attention to the rule of parsimony, concerning hisrtorical documents.

After reading this article please let us know if you are still leaning towards or away from the Jesus myth position. Thanks.

Jeremiah, interesting link. I am glad I am not the only one that says things like....

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

I realize that quote is in reference to Wells and not Doherty but still.

 

[jeremiah]

Jeremiah, interesting link. I am glad I am not the only one that says things like.... I realize that quote is in reference to Wells and not Doherty but still.

Interesting, I also immediately thought of you when I read that quote.

I agree, the topic would not be worth a battle royale, because even someone as unlettered as me, with a weeks worth of preperation, would probably easily win the debate against someone who has several "letters" after their name.

 

[allsmiles]

Here is what I have learned from the Jesus myth argument.

1 Denigrate all writings of the New Testament and the early Church Fathers as dubious and a part of the myth. Therefore they are not to be used for evidence.

2. Demand that all secular writers of the time period write about Jesus, and argue that their lack of writing, thus supports the myth position.

3. Take the few mentions of Jesus in the secular writings that survived, and parse every single word, and infuse it with the "proper" meaning. Then what still holds up, claim that it was added by Christians in later centuries.

If you are truly interested in reading about the great obstinance of its proponents here is a good site to start
;
www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Allsmiles, pay particular attention to the rule of parsimony, concerning historical documents.

After reading this article please let us know if you are still leaning towards or away from the Jesus myth position. Thanks.

:rotfl:

www.jesuspuzzle.org

Doherty has already rebutted Holding's "refutation" of the JM argument, had you done your own homework rather than relying on the work of others you would have known that.

I've read Holding's "refutation" and Doherty's rebuttal. Let me guess, you haven't even been to www.jesuspuzzle.org, you've never read the Jesus Puzzle and in short you have no idea what you're talking about.

:rotfl:

This is so easy.

 

[allsmiles]

I also know very little about the retards that think we didn't actually land on the moon.

Whenever you're ready to stick to the subject, stop obfuscating, grow up past ad hominems and tackle the JM head on, let me know :thumb:

 

[GuySmiley]

Its not true that Doherty doesn't have widespread support for the Jesus-myth. If you actually take the time to look at his website (www.jesuspuzzle.org) you'll see that Pepper, Karen, Bill, and Ian all agree with him.

 

[fool]

I also know very little about the retards that think we didn't actually land on the moon.

You should check into it.

 

[Granite]

Knight: you're being exceptionally and deliberately shallow on this issue.

Making an informed decision is something you owe yourself.

 

[jeremiah]

:rotfl:

www.jesuspuzzle.org

Doherty has already rebutted Holding's "refutation" of the JM argument, had you done your own homework rather than relying on the work of others you would have known that.

I've read Holding's "refutation" and Doherty's rebuttal. Let me guess, you haven't even been to www.jesuspuzzle.org, you've never read the Jesus Puzzle and in short you have no idea what you're talking about.

:rotfl:

This is so easy.

I see your Jesus puzzle, Holding,s refutation, and Doherty's rebuttal and raise you Holding's rebuttal to Doherty's rebuttal of Holding's refutation!

And I will throw in Holding's refutation of Doherty's rebuttal of Stroebel's Case for Christ.

This and much more in very exacting and often humerous rebuttal can be found at http://tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html and the linked sites it refers you too.

One thing that Doherty says is that he is not going to respond to Holding's last refutation of his work, because it is not worthy of his time. Therefore if there is an additional raise you would like to make in his "bluff" it would only come from Doherty breaking his word.

I think all the cards are on the table. My aces beat your twos! Your call!

 

[allsmiles]

I see your Jesus puzzle, Holding,s refutation, and Doherty's rebuttal and raise you Holding's rebuttal to Doherty's rebuttal of Holding's refutation!

And I will throw in Holding's refutation of Doherty's rebuttal of Stroebel's Case for Christ.

:chuckle:

This and much more in very exacting and often humerous rebuttal can be found at http://tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html and the linked sites it refers you too.

Thanks for the link but I've been there and done that several times.

One thing that Doherty says is that he is not going to respond to Holding's last refutation of his work, because it is not worthy of his time. Therefore if there is an additional raise you would like to make in his "bluff" it would only come from Doherty breaking his word.

How does your own medicine taste?

I think all the cards are on the table. My aces beat your twos! Your call!

Eye of the beholder. You have yet to show any of your cards as I have done nothing but request to be shown a demonstration of historical evidence of the physical existence of Christ in our timeline and you folks have failed to do so at every turn. Historical belief in Christ is the only evidence that has been presented. Ad hominems abound as does incompetence, cowardice and face saving pride.

So claim the pot all you'd like but you've shown no cards.