Who's brave enough to debate me on the gospels Jesus being a myth or not? (sunday, golden rule)
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.
Consensus opinion is frequently wrong. In fact, it might be true to say it’s more often wrong than right.
There’s an old saying that describes “consensus” which is just a majority of people agreeing to,think the same thing. The problem is … “when everybody is thinking the same thing, that just means nobody is really thinking”.
Consensus opinion is frequently wrong. In fact, it might be true to say it’s more often wrong than right.
There’s an old saying that describes “consensus” which is just a majority of people agreeing to,think the same thing. The problem is … “when everybody is thinking the same thing, that just means nobody is really thinking”.
So therefore the thinking of christians as a group may very well be wrong. In fact, according to you, more often wrong than right.
And I think what you have listed right up there with your screen name should be noted: "Senior Conspiracy Theorist".
It’s quite convenient to create two “Jesus’s” when attempting to dismiss the existence of him, yes? You present the argument that the “gospels” Jesus is “definitely” a fiction, while having the alternate version when inconvenient facts appear to offer some proof of his existence. And you see no problem with such “heads I win, tails you lose” type tactics, apparently, but you should at least recognize the highly inappropriate use of the term “definitely”. But I understand it’s not you that is creating this diversionary argument, but only an argument you have accepted and ran with it. But, regardless of the topic at hand, such tactical arguments are an instant indication that something is amiss with the position employing the tactic.
No, we are definitely talking about two types of Jesus, a miracle worker and a mere man. There is nothing amiss about this clarification, nor is it a diversionary argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
There seems to be an extreme level of bias coloring your opinion, with irrelevant “details” that simply don’t support your position, rationally or logically. The first point is that the claim that historians citing Josephus do so knowing it to be a fraud is baseless, and something you couldn’t possibly know. Secondly, it matters not to the basic core argument regarding the literal existence of Jesus, to what extent or another the writings of Josephus may have been altered, mistranslated, or what not, unless you are suggesting that the entire dialog referencing Jesus was totally fabricated, and there is no evidence suggesting that to be true. For example, let’s say we find an author/historian claiming the South’s Confederacy actually won the Civil War. You are trying to claim that this obviously erroneous claim is proof that the Confederacy never existed, or the Civil War never occurred. That’s the tactic you are employing by using the argument that Josephus’s writings were altered, and therefore any reference to Jesus is null and void. One doesn’t offer evidence of the other in this case, but actually argues against you, in truth. No matter any alleged alterations of Josephus writings, his reference to Jesus stands as evidence of Jesus, even if certain details are in error, or debatable.
There is strong evidence Josephus was changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And lastly, you suggest that anything coming from the 7th Century isn’t very reliable due to the passage of time after the era of Jesus, but ignore the fact that you’re citing arguments being made in the 20th Century? LOL. Those are some pretty big blinders you’re putting on that horse!
These 20th Century arguments are based on those texts that we do have. There is a difference between texts we do have and those we do not, which was the point being made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
More of the same tactical diversionary games … this time, semantics. Tacitus was referencing an “event” (crucifixion) as much as he was referencing a “person” (Jesus or Christ, whichever was used). And, in lieu of an alternative person you can actually cite specifically, and not this vague reference to “dozens” of possibilities, one can naturally assume he was referring to Jesus, in the context of coinciding with the crucifixion event being discussed. That’s just common sense, and logical conclusion. This is the weakest of the weak, in terms of arguments. You need to rethink what you think serves as some form of reasonable evidence. This ain’t it.
It is not a tactical diversionary games, so again with the ad hominem, but it is correct Tacitus does not say Jesus, the first copy we have of Tacitus said Chrestus. And one can not derive Christians from Chrestus. Also, we have early Christians quoting Tacitus, so we know they had read his works, and also searching for historical mentions of Jesus, yet not one of them mention this passage. That is just another reason to believe this passage was added or amended later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Oh, you use the term “secular historian”, so as not to highlight the bias toward atheism, but in this instance, the two are synonymous, when debating the historical legitimacy of the Bible or Biblical figures, so let’s at least be honest enough to call a spade a spade here, can we?
The term 'secular historian' is used because many of the early Christian historians were often not historians, and they frequently invented things. It has nothing to do with atheism, as the Roman historians were not atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Atheism wants us to accept the premise that our existence, and that of everything else in our known world, emerged all on its own, as purely incidental to natural random processes, and therefore, void of purpose, or deliberate action.
You want us to accept a complex god just existed, knowing everything, including how to fine tune a universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
That’s nonsensical from a purely scientific perspective, given the complexity of life, and the intricate structure of DNA, and the very clear code contained in these microscopic strands of proteins that represent the most sophisticated data storage technique known to exist in science. Yet this is precisely what you insist in true, because it’s true? But remember when kids would say “just because”? That’s what you’re doing here when you claim ‘it’s true, because it’s the truth”.
No one says just because, it is because of the overwhelming evidence for why we have complexity. But well done for admitting complexity (as in an all knowing god) just existing is not possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The base evidence which totally destroys the atheism narrative, and it’s primary partner, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is “irreducible complexity”. But that’s an entire topic all by itself.
Ha, the ridiculous lies of creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
I’ll leave you with one basic truth …. Atheism is a purely defunct and contrived narrative of those who want you to accept that your existence is meaningless, and without purpose. It’s purely to devalue human life, having no rational or scientific foundation at all..
There are many rational arguments for atheism, none for a complex gods just existing. And naturalism is a conclusion of science (unlike creationism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
That alone precludes it from being useful as any form of evidentiary basis for dispelling the existence or legitimacy of Jesus.
We do not need atheism for that, the earliest Christian texts we have said Jesus was a divine being, and Hebrews even says his one and only sacrifice was in heaven.
Consensus opinion is frequently wrong. In fact, it might be true to say it’s more often wrong than right.
While true, their evidence is strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
There’s an old saying that describes “consensus” which is just a majority of people agreeing to,think the same thing. The problem is … “when everybody is thinking the same thing, that just means nobody is really thinking”.
That is why I prefer to look at the actual arguments.
I don't think so. The way I'm reading thrill's postulations, I believe it would definitely be a minority view even among contemporary historians.
Even so; one could make the argument that modern historical "methods" are inherently biased against the traditional understanding.
The alleged "consensus" of contemporary historians still stands in stark contrast to the consensus of historians in times past. I have seen nothing that justifies granting any more credence to my contemporaries relative to those of the past.
I don't think it's a double standard. Your claims about the origin of the Gospels is a postulation based on faulty presuppositions and fairy dust. As much as you wish it were true, well you know what they say about wishes and buts...
Lots of accusations, Mike without any evidence. Here's my evidence:
"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."
In short, Christians have no evidence whatsoever that the gospels they are reading today are the same copies they claim were written in the 1st century. Without authentic copies from the 1st century no one can be certain that what they are reading today was how the gospels originally read.
Now where's your evidence we know the authors of the gospels?
"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."
In short, Christians have no evidence whatsoever that the gospels they are reading today are the same copies they claim were written in the 1st century. Without authentic copies from the 1st century no one can be certain that what they are reading today was how the gospels originally read.
Now where's your evidence we know the authors of the gospels?
Yours are arguments/conjectures based on a lack of information; not on any new information received.
I have no reason to disbelieve the Church Fathers and early churchmen who attributed authorship to the Gospels as they did.
I should ask you: what new information has been discovered that now discredits what we have always believed about the Gospels and their authorship?
Yours are arguments/conjectures based on a lack of information; not on any new information received.
I have no reason to disbelieve the Church Fathers and early churchmen who attributed authorship to the Gospels as they did.
I should ask you: what new information has been discovered that now discredits what we have always believed about the Gospels and their authorship?
You're just saying, "You don't have any evidence because you don't have any evidence" and "I believe the church claims because I believe the church claims". There's nothing evidential about what you say whereas I provided FACTS.
FACT: the first copies of the gospels don't start appearing until 200 years after Christ.
Disprove it with some historical citations.
FACT: the gospels were written by anonymous authors.
Disprove it with some historical citations.
You're never going to speak against anything the RCC says, Mike. That's why you're trapped in its dogmas and can't escape. Whether you want to or not is irrelevant. You couldn't even if you tried.
You're just saying, "You don't have any evidence because you don't have any evidence" and "I believe the church claims because I believe the church claims".
Sort of; but I do have actual reasons for believing the Church claims, and I don't just "believe them because I believe them". I believe the Church to be a credible witness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
There's nothing evidential about what you say whereas I provided FACTS.
FACT: the first copies of the gospels don't start appearing until 200 years after Christ.
That's not a "fact". That's an assertion/assumption based on there being no extant copies of the Gospels dating from any earlier than that. The oldest manuscripts we have were undoubtedly copied from older manuscripts. Justin Martyr had read the Gospels and mentioned them in Chapter 66 of his First Apology, and he lived in the early part of the 2nd century.
I'll take it further. I don't have an issue with this personal relationship per se, just (all) the Christians who claim you cannot know G-d unless you have this. People of other faiths know G-d just fine without Jesus.
Yea I’d agree with that !
Certain Christian groups though are more interested in discrediting other Christian denominations , than they are other faiths and religions.
They also use different approaches, depending on who they are “witnessing” to, whether that be other denominations, other religions, or atheists.
Just watch the likes of Ray Comfort in action. (who has both a Christian and Jewish background, but is now hardcore Evangelical )
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.
