Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for Tacitus checking documentation (I posted this while you were gone so you probably missed it) read below.
[15.38] A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterised old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion. Often, while they looked behind them, they were intercepted by flames on their side or in their face. Or if they reached a refuge close at hand, when this too was seized by the fire, they found that, even places, which they had imagined to be remote, were involved in the same calamity. At last, doubting what they should avoid or whither betake themselves, they crowded the streets or flung themselves down in the fields, while some who had lost their all, even their very daily bread, and others out of love for their kinsfolk, whom they had been unable to rescue, perished, though escape was open to them. And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.
...and from the above, what leads you to conclude that the authors he referred to mentioned the Christ passage? See, this is what appear to be unable to grasp. Tacitus researching official documents to learn about the fire of Rome isn't a problem. He was only 9 years old at the time so how else could he have known about it. He was an Imperial historian and would have had access to official documents after all. Where you are making a fool of yourself is by insisting that his 'Christ passage' was gleaned from official documents when such documents are...
1. not available to verify.
2, Unlikely to have contained such information.
Quote:
Obviously Tacitus researched what he wrote about and used two different authors to do so. Now contrary to what Raf says, that I am claim for fact that Christ is mentioned by those authors I have NOT done so...
Then you are giving an opinion...just like I am. If you are not claiming that the authors mentioned Christ, why even mention them?
Quote:
...and tried and tried again to point out to him my conclusion that the Christ passage is mentioned by those authors is based on Occam's Razor.
Do you even understand what O R is?? O R says that in explaining something, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. So...I say that...
1. it is unlikely that the Romans would even record the execution of an itinerant rebel rabbi.
2. even if they did, it is unlikely that they would archive such records for a hundred years.
3. Official documents are unlikely to have referred to 'Christ'.
4. Tacitus did not reveal his source.
Therefore O R would tell us that Tacitus did not get his Christ reference from official sources.
You on the other hand, with no evidence whatsoever, are making an assumption that he did.
Quote:
Everything else Tacitus got about the great fire from those two authors is fact concerning the great fire; therefore the simplest answer is that the Christ passage was also mentioned by those same authors.
Are you for real pal??? Yet another unfounded assumption that Tacitus got his information on the fire from those particular authors. Could you please point out where Tacitus said that in the passage you are putting forward. All I see is that Tacitus is saying that other authors had given conflicting reports regarding the fire.
Quote:
To say the Christ passage is just hearsay when everything else was based on the two authors, which was factual, is not the simplest answer.
Everything else ISN'T based on those authors. Tacitus simply mentions in passing that other authors had written about the fire with conflicting views. You are simply reading what isn't there. Can you please point out where Tacitus confirms that what he writes is the quotes of those particular authors? No you can't. You are ASSUMING again and O.R says that we should NOT ASSUME what isn't necessary.
[quote=pneuma;45705682]
Quote:
What a load of crap. So belief does not need to be proven...
No it doesn't because stating a belief is not making a positive claim. Your persistent attempts to unload the BoP will fail because it is you that is making the positive claim...or rather you WERE making the positive claim before you conceded that you are now not claiming that Tacitus got his info from official documents as fact. Now that we see that you are simply stating an opinion based on what you believe, as am I, you are relieved of the BoP.
Quote:
...yet you yell all the time for the Christian to prove Jesus did everything the gospels say he did. But i guess it is just the christian that has to prove their belief.
No. I have never asked Christians to prove what they believe. I ask them to prove what they state as FACT. Thereby lies the difference.
Quote:
Tacitus wrote what he did, that is a factual statement as it is in his writings.Yet you say it is most likely hearsay that he wrote.
No. Yet again you put your words in my mouth. Please stop doing that. It's not only irritating but intellectually dishonest...as well as showing that you are desperately clutching at straws in order to save yourself from drowning. What I ACTUALLY say is that his mention of your Jesus is likely to have been from what he heard on the streets or from Christian stories that were circulating at the time ...rather than from official documents and I have given my reasons for thinking it unlikely that official document contained that Christ passage.
Quote:
Thus the BOP is on YOU to prove it was hearsay, YOU are the one challenging what is written, I can let what is written speak for itself.
This is the last time I will explain it to you before ignoring you regarding the BoP. I am not making a positive statement.
Example 1: Tacitus certainly did not get his Christ passage from official documents. Example 2: God really does/does not exist.
1 and 2 are positive statements and leaves me with the BoP
Example 3: I think it's unlikely that Tacitus got his Christ passage from official sources.
Example 4: It think it's unlikely that God exists.
Example 3 and 4 are not positive statements. They are opinions/beliefs and do not require proof.
If you don't understand what the BoP is...and you clearly don't, please look it up.
Quote:
I am not the one who has made any challenge to what is written, YOU have, thus even though you do not like it the BOP lies with you.
You're dumb if you think it lies with me
Quote:
And we all know why you don't like the BOP sitting on your shoulders, because out of your own mouth YOU have NO EVIDENCE. That's called faith.
It doesn't sit on my shoulders...and from your own mouth you concede that you are not making a claim of fact
What a load of crap. So belief does not need to be proven, yet you yell all the time for the Christian to prove Jesus did everything the gospels say he did. But i guess it is just the christian that has to prove their belief.
Tacitus wrote what he did, that is a factual statement as it is in his writings.Yet you say it is most likely hearsay that he wrote. Thus the BOP is on YOU to prove it was hearsay, YOU are the one challenging what is written, I can let what is written speak for itself.
I am not the one who has made any challenge to what is written, YOU have, thus even though you do not like it the BOP lies with you.
And we all know why you don't like the BOP sitting on your shoulders, because out of your own mouth YOU have NO EVIDENCE. That's called faith.
Thus throughout this whole discussion your only stance has been one of faith, ironic ain't it.
...and from the above, what leads you to conclude that the authors he referred to mentioned the Christ passage? See, this is what appear to be unable to grasp. Tacitus researching official documents to learn about the fire of Rome isn't a problem. He was only 9 years old at the time so how else could he have known about it. He was an Imperial historian and would have had access to official documents after all. Where you are making a fool of yourself is by insisting that his 'Christ passage' was gleaned from official documents when such documents are...
Already gave you the reason Raf. Everything else Tacitus recorded concerning the fire was in the authors writings, thus OR says so to was the Christ passage.
Quote:
1. not available to verify.
This is true
Quote:
2, Unlikely to have contained such information.
This is your opinion, not based on any evidence
Quote:
Then you are giving an opinion...just like I am. If you are not claiming that the authors mentioned Christ, why even mention them?
I have stated from the beginning that I based my conclusion on OR, go ahead look it up.
Quote:
Do you even understand what O R is?? O R says that in explaining something, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. So...I say that...
1. it is unlikely that the Romans would even record the execution of an itinerant rebel rabbi.
2. even if they did, it is unlikely that they would archive such records for a hundred years.
3. Official documents are unlikely to have referred to 'Christ'.
4. Tacitus did not reveal his source.
And everyone of those assumptions are not necessary to the Tacitus statement of Christ. I can simply leave Tacitus statement as is, I do not even need to use OR on his statement, in other word Raf I do not even need to assume anything.
You are the one that must make more assumptions then is necessary to get to your belief.
Quote:
Therefore O R would tell us that Tacitus did not get his Christ reference from official sources.
Why? Because you assume he did not. Again I have to point out to you that you are using OR on your own belief, thus will always get the answer you want.
Quote:
You on the other hand, with no evidence whatsoever, are making an assumption that he did.
Again I do not need to assume anything, Tacitus wrote what he did, based on his search of the two authors.
Quote:
Are you for real pal??? Yet another unfounded assumption that Tacitus got his information on the fire from those particular authors. Could you please point out where Tacitus said that in the passage you are putting forward. All I see is that Tacitus is saying that other authors had given conflicting reports regarding the fire.
Everything else ISN'T based on those authors. Tacitus simply mentions in passing that other authors had written about the fire with conflicting views. You are simply reading what isn't there. Can you please point out where Tacitus confirms that what he writes is the quotes of those particular authors? No you can't. You are ASSUMING again and O.R says that we should NOT ASSUME what isn't necessary.
Why mention the authors at all if they did not have any value to his search. Obviously by making mention of the two authors they said something that Tacitus used.
Quote:
No it doesn't because stating a belief is not making a positive claim. Your persistent attempts to unload the BoP will fail because it is you that is making the positive claim...or rather you WERE making the positive claim before you conceded that you are now not claiming that Tacitus got his info from official documents as fact. Now that we see that you are simply stating an opinion based on what you believe, as am I, you are relieved of the BoP.
You keep saying I have made a positive claim( in other words lying), please show everyone here where I did this. From the get go I showed that I was using OR, gave the reasoning to go with it and making my conclusion based on OR. But again I will point out I did not even half to do this as Tacitus wrote what he wrote and I can leave it at that. So again you are the one challenging what Tacitus wrote using one evidence but your own opinion.
Quote:
No. I have never asked Christians to prove what they believe. I ask them to prove what they state as FACT. Thereby lies the difference.
So why then did you ask me if I believe Jesus walked on water or not? If I had of said yes you would have taken the yes as fact. You know it and so do I.
Quote:
No. Yet again you put your words in my mouth. Please stop doing that. It's not only irritating but intellectually dishonest...as well as showing that you are desperately clutching at straws in order to save yourself from drowning. What I ACTUALLY say is that his mention of your Jesus is likely to have been from what he heard on the streets or from Christian stories that were circulating at the time ...rather than from official documents and I have given my reasons for thinking it unlikely that official document contained that Christ passage.
What the difference you are still saying it was hearsay, so what words is it that I am putting in your mouth?
Quote:
This is the last time I will explain it to you before ignoring you regarding the BoP. I am not making a positive statement.
Example 1: Tacitus certainly did not get his Christ passage from official documents.
Example 2: God really does/does not exist.
1 and 2 are positive statements and leaves me with the BoP
Example 3: I think it's unlikely that Tacitus got his Christ passage from official sources.
Example 4: It think it's unlikely that God exists.
Example 3 and 4 are not positive statements. They are opinions/beliefs and do not require proof.
If you don't understand what the BoP is...and you clearly don't, please look it up.
You're dumb if you think it lies with me
It doesn't sit on my shoulders...and from your own mouth you concede that you are not making a claim of fact
Do you even realise what you are saying? Belief does not require proof.
That single statement set every single atheist objections of the miracles of Jesus back to the stone age.
Let me show you how your single statement set ALL atheist objections concerning Jesus back to the stone age. Atheist will hate you for your statement, Christian will love ya for it.
You asked me if Jesus walked on water. I said I never say something is impossible, improbable yes, impossible no.
By your simple statement "belief does not require proof" I have had to re-evaluate my statement and now believe Jesus walked on water. Remember you said "belief does not require proof" thus belief trumps evidence every single time.
Let me give you a scenario about "belief does not require proof" from your question did Jesus walk on water.
How would science test whether Jesus walked on water or not.
One method would be try and replicate someone walking on water.
So lets say 100 scientist got together and had 2000 people try to walk on water.
What the scientist no doubt would observe is that all 2000 people failed to walk on water. Thus they conclude based on the evidence of the experiment that Jesus could not have walked on water.
They all wrote their papers on their findings, the secular word clapped them on the back for their findings from their experiment.
So the secular world was very happy, they now had verifiable proof that Jesus did not walk on water.
But............ Did they have verifiable proof that Jesus did not walk on water? Absolutely....... NOT.
Why absolutely NOT?
Because there is ANOTHER conclusion that one can draw from the scientists experiment.
What other conclusion you ask?
As "belief does not require proof" it can be concludedthat the scientist had 2000 failures in their experiment.
Therefore the scientists did not prove someone could not walk on water all they proved was that their experiment failed.
So now the Christian can do exactly what most atheist do and can just say I believe your so called fact are nothing more then failed attempts at trying to prove Jesus could not have done what the atheist say he could not have done.
This same conclusion can be used with everything faith based recorded in the bible.
Congratulations Raf your "belief does not require proof" statement set back every atheist point of argument back to the stone age.
Already gave you the reason Raf. Everything else Tacitus recorded concerning the fire was in the authors writings, thus OR says so to was the Christ passage.
Show it. You are taking Tacitus as saying that other authors wrote conflicting reports about the fire and then jumping to the conclusion that Tacitus quoted what they wrote. There is nothing in what Tacitus wrote that should be leading you to that conclusion. If you think that Tacitus is quoting them then please show WHICH of the conflicting accounts that he mentions he is quoting. There is nothing, NOTHING in what you posted that should have led you to the conclusion you have come to, no more than me stating.... 'I have written a book on the Honda ST1100 motorcycle being the best bike ever. Other authors have written about that same bike with conflicting reports.'
Is there anything in that which leads you to conclude that I have quoted or copied from those other authors. Of course not! And that is all Tacitus is saying...that other authors wrote about the fire and they do not agree on the cause of it. You, for reasons that are obvious, are reading Tacitus as saying...'Other authors wrote about the fire and I quoted them verbatim....and you are saying that because that is the only way you can insert the Christ passage. Well you fail miserably pal.
Quote:
This is your opinion, not based on any evidence
I have never said otherwise.
Quote:
I have stated from the beginning that I based my conclusion on OR, go ahead look it up.
No you are not basing it on O R because you are introducing things that are assuming things that are not necessary.
Quote:
And everyone of those assumptions are not necessary to the Tacitus statement of Christ.
...but they are! If it is unlikely that the Romans kept records for the execution of ragged-arsed rabbi, then the claim that Tacitus saw a report about the execution of a ragged-arsed wandering trouble-maker in an official document 100 years later is also unlikely.
Quote:
Why? Because you assume he did not.
No...because logic, reason and common sense tell us.
Quote:
Again I do not need to assume anything, Tacitus wrote what he did, based on his search of the two authors.
You have to show that Tacitus was quoting those other authors. I repeat yet again. There is nothing in what you gave that would lead anyone but you to the conclusion that Tacitus was doing anything other than mentioning that other authors had written conflicting reports about the fire.
Quote:
Why mention the authors at all if they did not have any value to his search.
...because he was telling us that other authors had different ideas on the cause of the fire. Ye gods man! He's actually telling you that in the first sentence!! Read it for goodness sake...
"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,..."
It's right there in front of your eyes man! Nowhere does he say that he is quoting or even making reference to those conflicting accounts. If he was then he'd have to give more than one account wouldn't he...because there were conflicting accounts?
Quote:
You keep saying I have made a positive claim( in other words lying),...
See! There you go again! You are making it up as you go along! Making a positive claim does not say that you are lying. You are beginning to sound like an idiot. Stop it!
Quote:
...please show everyone here where I did this.
Did what FFS! Lying? I have never accused you of lying. I say you are making a positive claim...which you are....that Tacitus got his Christ passage from official archived Roman documents.
Quote:
From the get go I showed that I was using OR, gave the reasoning to go with it and making my conclusion based on OR.
I'm now convinced that you don't even know what O R says, so you'd best go look it up
Quote:
So why then did you ask me if I believe Jesus walked on water or not? If I had of said yes you would have taken the yes as fact. You know it and so do I.
Again you are assuming that you can read my mind. Stop. I wanted to ascertain which parts of the Bible you believed and which you didn't.
Quote:
What the difference you are still saying it was hearsay, so what words is it that I am putting in your mouth?
There is a huge difference but your intellectual dishonest will not allow you to see it. Allow me to demonstrate the difference to you.
1. What Tacitus wrote about the fire was hearsay.
2. What Tacitus wrote about Jesus was hearsay.
Do you see it. If not perhaps someone else will explain it to you.
Quote:
Do you even realise what you are saying? Belief does not require proof.
That single statement set every single atheist objections of the miracles of Jesus back to the stone age.
Let me show you how your single statement set ALL atheist objections concerning Jesus back to the stone age. Atheist will hate you for your statement, Christian will love ya for it.
You asked me if Jesus walked on water. I said I never say something is impossible, improbable yes, impossible no.
By your simple statement "belief does not require proof" I have had to re-evaluate my statement and now believe Jesus walked on water. Remember you said "belief does not require proof" thus belief trumps evidence every single time.
No it does not trump evidence at all. Belief is a personal opinion. Evidence can confirm or dismiss the belief as fact. Sorry you cant grasp that.
Quote:
Let me give you a scenario about "belief does not require proof" from your question did Jesus walk on water.
How would science test whether Jesus walked on water or not.
One method would be try and replicate someone walking on water.
So lets say 100 scientist got together and had 2000 people try to walk on water.
What the scientist no doubt would observe is that all 2000 people failed to walk on water. Thus they conclude based on the evidence of the experiment that Jesus could not have walked on water.
No. They would conclude that there is no verifiable evidence that people can walk on water.
Quote:
They all wrote their papers on their findings, the secular word clapped them on the back for their findings from their experiment.
So the secular world was very happy, they now had verifiable proof that Jesus did not walk on water.
But............ Did they have verifiable proof that Jesus did not walk on water? Absolutely....... NOT.
Why absolutely NOT?
Because there is ANOTHER conclusion that one can draw from the scientists experiment.
What other conclusion you ask?
As "belief does not require proof" it can be concludedthat the scientist had 2000 failures in their experiment.
Therefore the scientists did not prove someone could not walk on water all they proved was that their experiment failed.
So now the Christian can do exactly what most atheist do and can just say I believe your so called fact are nothing more then failed attempts at trying to prove Jesus could not have done what the atheist say he could not have done.
This same conclusion can be used with everything faith based recorded in the bible.
Congratulations Raf your "belief does not require proof" statement set back every atheist point of argument back to the stone age.
Ye gods! Can someone explain it to him please. I don't have the energy any more.
Show it. You are taking Tacitus as saying that other authors wrote conflicting reports about the fire and then jumping to the conclusion that Tacitus quoted what they wrote. There is nothing in what Tacitus wrote that should be leading you to that conclusion. If you think that Tacitus is quoting them then please show WHICH of the conflicting accounts that he mentions he is quoting. There is nothing, NOTHING in what you posted that should have led you to the conclusion you have come to, no more than me stating.... 'I have written a book on the Honda ST1100 motorcycle being the best bike ever. Other authors have written about that same bike with conflicting reports.'
Is there anything in that which leads you to conclude that I have quoted or copied from those other authors. Of course not! And that is all Tacitus is saying...that other authors wrote about the fire and they do not agree on the cause of it. You, for reasons that are obvious, are reading Tacitus as saying...'Other authors wrote about the fire and I quoted them verbatim....and you are saying that because that is the only way you can insert the Christ passage. Well you fail miserably pal.
I have never said otherwise.
No you are not basing it on O R because you are introducing things that are assuming things that are not necessary.
...but they are! If it is unlikely that the Romans kept records for the execution of ragged-arsed rabbi, then the claim that Tacitus saw a report about the execution of a ragged-arsed wandering trouble-maker in an official document 100 years later is also unlikely.
No...because logic, reason and common sense tell us.
You have to show that Tacitus was quoting those other authors. I repeat yet again. There is nothing in what you gave that would lead anyone but you to the conclusion that Tacitus was doing anything other than mentioning that other authors had written conflicting reports about the fire.
...because he was telling us that other authors had different ideas on the cause of the fire. Ye gods man! He's actually telling you that in the first sentence!! Read it for goodness sake...
"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,..."
It's right there in front of your eyes man! Nowhere does he say that he is quoting or even making reference to those conflicting accounts. If he was then he'd have to give more than one account wouldn't he...because there were conflicting accounts?
See! There you go again! You are making it up as you go along! Making a positive claim does not say that you are lying. You are beginning to sound like an idiot. Stop it!
Did what FFS! Lying? I have never accused you of lying. I say you are making a positive claim...which you are....that Tacitus got his Christ passage from official archived Roman documents.
I'm now convinced that you don't even know what O R says, so you'd best go look it up
Again you are assuming that you can read my mind. Stop. I wanted to ascertain which parts of the Bible you believed and which you didn't.
There is a huge difference but your intellectual dishonest will not allow you to see it. Allow me to demonstrate the difference to you.
1. What Tacitus wrote about the fire was hearsay.
2. What Tacitus wrote about Jesus was hearsay.
Do you see it. If not perhaps someone else will explain it to you.
No it does not trump evidence at all. Belief is a personal opinion. Evidence can confirm or dismiss the belief as fact. Sorry you cant grasp that.
No. They would conclude that there is no verifiable evidence that people can walk on water.
Ye gods! Can someone explain it to him please. I don't have the energy any more.
There you go rambling again.
Tacitus checked the authors who had two different accounts of why the great fire took place, Tacitus then choose the one about the Christians to put into his history.
I never said you said I was lying Raf, I said you were lying by saying I claimed my conclusion was fact, and then asked you to show everyone here just where I made such a claim.
And yes they would make the claim that it was just another failed experiment.
Just look at the evidence.
I believe Jesus walked on water, I do not need any proof of that belief.
So what does the evidence show.
To the secular world they would conclude the evidence showed that Jesus could not have walked on water because the 2000 experiments failed to produce one person walking on water.
To the Christian that same evidence that 2000 people failed to walk on water shows the christian that the scientist had 2000 failed test. and if at first you don't succeed, try try again.
So as the christian belief does not need proof, the burden of proof lies with the secular world to prove that the 2000 test were not 2000 failed tests.
See how that works Raf. and how your simple statement set all atheist view back to the stone age.
All the Christian now has to do is say prove it, my belief does not require proof therefore the burden of proof lies with the atheist to prove Jesus did not walk on water.
And like I said even if the atheist were to say we did 2000 test, that was not good enough for the christian so we did another 2000 test all the Christian has to say yup now you have 4000 failed test, try try again.
The atheist would then say they are not failed test, and the Christian would only have to say prove they are not failed test.
I could do this all day Raf and ever single time belief will trump all scientific methods because belief does not require proof.
Tacitus checked the authors who had two different accounts of why the great fire took place, Tacitus then choose the one about the Christians to put into his history.
Assumption and opinion without a shred of evidence to back it up. Even accredited historians say that there is nopw way that we can know as Tacitus did not disclose his source. You are ASSuming. Recognise that and live with it.
Quote:
I never said you said I was lying Raf, I said you were lying by saying I claimed my conclusion was fact, and then asked you to show everyone here just where I made such a claim.
You've made it all the way through. You make positive statements as fact. You just did it again above when you said ... "Tacitus checked the authors who had two different accounts of why the great fire took place, Tacitus then choose the one about the Christians to put into his history." If you are not proposing that as a fact then you need to prefix it with something like...'I believe', 'it is my opinion' or 'It is likely'
Quote:
And yes they would make the claim that it was just another failed experiment.
Just look at the evidence.
I believe Jesus walked on water, I do not need any proof of that belief.
So what does the evidence show.
To the secular world they would conclude the evidence showed that Jesus could not have walked on water because the 2000 experiments failed to produce one person walking on water.
To the Christian that same evidence that 2000 people failed to walk on water shows the christian that the scientist had 2000 failed test. and if at first you don't succeed, try try again.
So as the christian belief does not need proof, the burden of proof lies with the secular world to prove that the 2000 test were not 2000 failed tests.
See how that works Raf. and how your simple statement set all atheist view back to the stone age.
All the Christian now has to do is say prove it, my belief does not require proof therefore the burden of proof lies with the atheist to prove Jesus did not walk on water.
And like I said even if the atheist were to say we did 2000 test, that was not good enough for the christian so we did another 2000 test all the Christian has to say yup now you have 4000 failed test, try try again.
The atheist would then say they are not failed test, and the Christian would only have to say prove they are not failed test.
I could do this all day Raf and ever single time belief will trump all scientific methods because belief does not require proof.
With regard to the rest of your post. Please edit it to show what point of mine you are referencing and I will respond to it (minus anything to do with the BoP which, despite repeated attempts to explain it to you, you fail to grasp). I am not going to edit your posts for you.
Quote:
So as the christian belief does not need proof...,
That is correct...as long as the Christian says...'I believe that Jesus walked on water'. As soon as he starts making positive claims such as 'Jesus DID walk on water' he takes on the BoP to show that.
I have made it known before and I will repeat it again. As an atheist, I am willing to admit *A* Jesus may have existed. What I do NOT agree with or admit are the fanciful tales woven around this character that we find in the New Testament. The way I see it, there could have been some itinerant preacher in that apocalyptically charged environment walking about the place talking about a new age that would usher in the kingdom of God. He seemed to have recognized that a physical kingdom was not going to occur before a spiritual kingdom was established in the hearts of men FIRST.
He was able to muser up a following and because of his charisma, was seen as yet another messiah (an anointed person chosen to speak on behalf of God). But, before he could get carried away with his delusions, the Romans grabbed him and strung him up leaving his followers in confusion and disappointment. I think where the stroke of genius came in was when these followers started claiming that Jesus may have died, but he actually rose from the dead and went off to be with God, you know, like the Greek demi-gods, Heracles and Dionysus. In their estimation, he was not *A* son of God (an anointed person, enlisted to do God's bidding on earth) but rather, THE son of God. It might have been that last title that led to the retelling of his story because savior gods have to:
1. Be predicted
2. Have a miraculous birth and a miraculous rescue from death by a jealous king
3. Have a life of miracles and either do great physical exploits OR be of great wisdom to teach the masses.
4. Die because of trumped up charges
5. Rise from the dead to show power over man's greatest enemy
Thus, the Gospel of Jesus is built on those 5 things, A bunch of fanciful stuff, yes, but necessary to make a mere mortal larger than life to PROVE he was THE messiah the Jews were looking for.
Assumption and opinion without a shred of evidence to back it up. Even accredited historians say that there is nopw way that we can know as Tacitus did not disclose his source. You are ASSuming. Recognise that and live with it.
You've made it all the way through. You make positive statements as fact. You just did it again above when you said ... "Tacitus checked the authors who had two different accounts of why the great fire took place, Tacitus then choose the one about the Christians to put into his history." If you are not proposing that as a fact then you need to prefix it with something like...'I believe', 'it is my opinion' or 'It is likely'
With regard to the rest of your post. Please edit it to show what point of mine you are referencing and I will respond to it (minus anything to do with the BoP which, despite repeated attempts to explain it to you, you fail to grasp). I am not going to edit your posts for you.
That is correct...as long as the Christian says...'I believe that Jesus walked on water'. As soon as he starts making positive claims such as 'Jesus DID walk on water' he takes on the BoP to show that.
Now I know you are being deliberately obtuse, there is nothing anyone writes that is not based on belief, just because someone does not use the words I believe or in my opinion does not mean someone is stating things as fact.
are you really claiming that as fact? or is it just your opinion?
Quote:
LMAO! what you are quoting isn't about your Jesus. It's nothing to do with your Jesus. 20:9 is about Jesus, son of Damneus...and that passage IS believed to have been doctored by the Church to make it look as if Josephus was talking about the Christian man-god. That's why I said it's a forgery. Modern consensus says that the words... 'The one called Christ'... is an interpolation.
Look, the passage isn't a taking about James so much as Albinus. Let's look at the reference. Now, if you remove 'The one called Christ', the passage still makes total sense, and since the only copies we have of Antiquities come from Christian sources, it is highly probable, as the experts say, that the 'Liars for Jesus' (he Church) got their grubby little hands on it.
Now, let's assume that that reference is accurate. Is there a high priest names Jesus (a christ) there?? Why, yes, there is. That person is Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.
so is it really a fact that the James passage is speaking of Jesus son of Damneus, or is that just your opinion?
Quote:
They also loose sight of the fact that such a man as Jesus would not have warranted a trail by the likes of Pilate. Pilate had better things to do than conduct trails of common criminals...not to mention that only Roman citizens were entitled to a trail.
This is the Santa, saint Nickolas thing all over again. When I read your statements of fact I have enough common sense to realize you are just stating your opinion or what you believe, you on the other hand do not seem to have enough common sense to be able to do the same thing. Get a grip Raf.
Your statement belief does not need proof is just plain idiotic. No one anywhere then needs to have the BOP. I believe what Tacitus wrote is authentic to the letter, you believe what Tacitus wrote is just hearsay. Good no one has to prove anything. debate over.
You seem to be under the impression that what Christians write and talk about is base on facts, well I got news for you Raf. Christians do NOT write and talk based on fact, everything the christian write and talk about is based on their belief, in other words it is based on faith.
Thus according to you the Christian NEVER has the BOP, thus will always come out the winner in any debate just as I showed with the Jesus walking on water scenario. Belief that has no BOP will always trump every argument raised against it.
You simply set all atheist points against the bible back to the stone age with your idiotic stance that belief does not need proof. All because you did not want to, and could not prove anything you wrote.
I have made it known before and I will repeat it again. As an atheist, I am willing to admit *A* Jesus may have existed. What I do NOT agree with or admit are the fanciful tales woven around this character that we find in the New Testament. The way I see it, there could have been some itinerant preacher in that apocalyptically charged environment walking about the place talking about a new age that would usher in the kingdom of God. He seemed to have recognized that a physical kingdom was not going to occur before a spiritual kingdom was established in the hearts of men FIRST.
He was able to muser up a following and because of his charisma, was seen as yet another messiah (an anointed person chosen to speak on behalf of God). But, before he could get carried away with his delusions, the Romans grabbed him and strung him up leaving his followers in confusion and disappointment. I think where the stroke of genius came in was when these followers started claiming that Jesus may have died, but he actually rose from the dead and went off to be with God, you know, like the Greek demi-gods, Heracles and Dionysus. In their estimation, he was not *A* son of God (an anointed person, enlisted to do God's bidding on earth) but rather, THE son of God. It might have been that last title that led to the retelling of his story because savior gods have to:
1. Be predicted
2. Have a miraculous birth and a miraculous rescue from death by a jealous king
3. Have a life of miracles and either do great physical exploits OR be of great wisdom to teach the masses.
4. Die because of trumped up charges
5. Rise from the dead to show power over man's greatest enemy
Thus, the Gospel of Jesus is built on those 5 things, A bunch of fanciful stuff, yes, but necessary to make a mere mortal larger than life to PROVE he was THE messiah the Jews were looking for.
Well believe it or not IDM that is all I was trying to prove in this thread, there was a historical Jesus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
