Faith and reason

[McCulloch]

Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.

Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?

Most non-theists and a good number of theists would deny this.

[ST_JB]

I am sorry you are disappointed. However, Tacitus is not particular independant or convincing. It is a full 45 years after the Jewish revolt, with no knowledge what so ever where he got his information.. as well as getting many of the details incorrect.

Not convincing? Is this your own opinion???

Can you tell us what are those incorrect details you are talking about???

I was once a history student back when I was taking my Bachelor of Arts majoring in History (unfortunately abandoned it in favor for another degree), and I know how to appreciate pieces of evidence especially from ancient sources. Should there be a need to deal with Tacitus career in here, then let it be. I am most willing to confront you as well with reagards to this matter.

But as much as i WOULD LIKE TO, I guess what we are seeing in these exchanges of ours is a one sided presentation of evidence.

I have nothing to examine for your claim. ALL I was seeing here is your empty opposition. I understand your concern about Tacitus sources, which we can deal with more deeply as we go along in our discussion.

But I am desperately waiting for your evidence against Jesus' existence in flesh and blood. I am expecting mre than "cynical" statement. I am expecting a verifiable source of your claim.

I hope you will not disappoint me.

Maybe if you had something worthwhile to begin with there would be more of a discussion.

Huh??? Are you okay??? Do you think you have put something to start with in this discussion???

I am still waiting for the substantiation of your claim. Here, let me help you what you need to fill in for this discussion...

1. Verifiable sources on your claim against historicity of Jesus
2. Your claim against the writing of Josephesus
3. Your claim against the writing of Tacitus

While unsupported claims from your side are piling up every time you post against the evidences for my claim, you on the other hand still are incapable of providing us "verifiable" sources for your claim.

I don't think this duscussion/debate is pretty well getting fair. I just hope you will not disappoint me like any other OPPOSITION here who only love to give their oppositions without substantiation.

A "cynical" statement has no place in debate.

[Goat]

I am sorry you are disappointed. However, Tacitus is not particular independant or convincing. It is a full 45 years after the Jewish revolt, with no knowledge what so ever where he got his information.. as well as getting many of the details incorrect.

Not convincing? Is this your own opinion???

Can you tell us what are those incorrect details you are talking about???

I was once a history student back when I was taking my Bachelor of Arts majoring in History (unfortunately abandoned it in favor for another degree), and I know how to appreciate pieces of evidence especially from ancient sources. Should there be a need to deal with Tacitus career in here, then let it be. I am most willing to confront you as well with reagards to this matter.

But as much as i WOULD LIKE TO, I guess what we are seeing in these exchanges of ours is a one sided presentation of evidence.

I have nothing to examine for your claim. ALL I was seeing here is your empty opposition. I understand your concern about Tacitus sources, which we can deal with more deeply as we go along in our discussion.

But I am desperately waiting for your evidence against Jesus' existence in flesh and blood. I am expecting mre than "cynical" statement. I am expecting a verifiable source of your claim.

I hope you will not disappoint me.

Maybe if you had something worthwhile to begin with there would be more of a discussion.

Huh??? Are you okay??? Do you think you have put something to start with in this discussion???

I am still waiting for the substantiation of your claim. Here, let me help you what you need to fill in for this discussion...

1. Verifiable sources on your claim against historicity of Jesus
2. Your claim against the writing of Josephesus
3. Your claim against the writing of Tacitus

While unsupported claims from your side are piling up every time you post against the evidences for my claim, you on the other hand still are incapable of providing us "verifiable" sources for your claim.

I don't think this duscussion/debate is pretty well getting fair. I just hope you will not disappoint me like any other OPPOSITION here who only love to give their oppositions without substantiation.

A "cynical" statement has no place in debate.

Shrug..number 1 is trying to prove a negative.
number 2.. it is well known that antiquities 18 is at least a modification ..and therefore it is up to the people who use that to demonstrate it existed before
the 4th century. Then, the use of a very Jewish term that Josephus scrupulously
avoided must be accounted for. I noticed you didn't try to COUNTER any of my arguments.. just ignored them.

You also are just whining and complaining about my arguement against Tacitus.
Can you demonstrate he did not get his information from Christians, and show me that he is actually an independant source?

You are not countering my claims.. you are just dismissing them out of hand.

If you want to claim those are GREAT sources.. well that is your problem, not mine.
I have to wonder why you can't find any secular sources from within 60 years of the alleged execution to begin with. If the stories of Jesus in the gospels were at ALL accurate, then some note about him would be from a non-Christian source from his lifetime could be expected. If the Christians weren't so sensetive about the fact there IS not evidence for this super guy, they wouldn't be doing forgeries such as antiquities 18 to begin with

[Zzyzx]

I have to wonder why you can't find any secular sources from within 60 years of the alleged execution to begin with. If the stories of Jesus in the gospels were at ALL accurate, then some note about him would be from a non-Christian source from his lifetime could be expected. If the Christians weren't so sensetive about the fact there IS not evidence for this super guy, they wouldn't be doing forgeries such as antiquities 18 to begin with

Excellent point. If the godman story was accurate WHY would anyone have bothered to make forgeries?

[Easyrider]

I have to wonder why you can't find any secular sources from within 60 years of the alleged execution to begin with. If the stories of Jesus in the gospels were at ALL accurate, then some note about him would be from a non-Christian source from his lifetime could be expected. If the Christians weren't so sensetive about the fact there IS not evidence for this super guy, they wouldn't be doing forgeries such as antiquities 18 to begin with

Excellent point. If the godman story was accurate WHY would anyone have bothered to make forgeries?

Probably the same reason various scientists have forged their works. Idiocy, rather than accuracy.

However, no one has yet succeeded in making the case that the NT is just a collection of myths, forgeries, or lies. When you can do something about that you will have established some credibility for that otherwise stunningly imaginitive mindset.

[Zzyzx]

.

However, no one has yet succeeded in making the case that the NT is just a collection of myths, forgeries, or lies. When you can do something about that you will have established some credibility for that otherwise stunningly imaginitive mindset.

If I chose to promote the bible as something other than myth, forgery or lies -- as the "word of god" or "inerrant" or "infallible" -- I WOULD make a case for it being true.

I do not choose to promote a collection of writings that I cannot confidently set forth as being true. Those who do claim that the bible is true cannot support their claims with anything but more claims and references back to the bible and to church dogma.

If there is actual evidence of truth in the bible it is carefully hidden instead of being brought forward in discussion and debate. Incredible claims are made with NO verification and with the demand, "prove me wrong or accept what I say".

The absence of reasoning in the “prove me wrong” position is obvious to any discerning reader.

[Cmass]

ZZ wrote:

Excellent point. If the godman story was accurate WHY would anyone have bothered to make forgeries?

Easyrider wrote:

Probably the same reason various scientists have forged their works. Idiocy, rather than accuracy.

Hey, we agree!!!
The Godman story was forged for the same reason creation scientists forge their works!
Idiocy.

[ST_JB]

I am sorry you are disappointed. However, Tacitus is not particular independant or convincing. It is a full 45 years after the Jewish revolt, with no knowledge what so ever where he got his information.. as well as getting many of the details incorrect.

Not convincing? Is this your own opinion???

Can you tell us what are those incorrect details you are talking about???

I was once a history student back when I was taking my Bachelor of Arts majoring in History (unfortunately abandoned it in favor for another degree), and I know how to appreciate pieces of evidence especially from ancient sources. Should there be a need to deal with Tacitus career in here, then let it be. I am most willing to confront you as well with reagards to this matter.

But as much as i WOULD LIKE TO, I guess what we are seeing in these exchanges of ours is a one sided presentation of evidence.

I have nothing to examine for your claim. ALL I was seeing here is your empty opposition. I understand your concern about Tacitus sources, which we can deal with more deeply as we go along in our discussion.

But I am desperately waiting for your evidence against Jesus' existence in flesh and blood. I am expecting mre than "cynical" statement. I am expecting a verifiable source of your claim.

I hope you will not disappoint me.

Maybe if you had something worthwhile to begin with there would be more of a discussion.

Huh??? Are you okay??? Do you think you have put something to start with in this discussion???

I am still waiting for the substantiation of your claim. Here, let me help you what you need to fill in for this discussion...

1. Verifiable sources on your claim against historicity of Jesus
2. Your claim against the writing of Josephesus
3. Your claim against the writing of Tacitus

While unsupported claims from your side are piling up every time you post against the evidences for my claim, you on the other hand still are incapable of providing us "verifiable" sources for your claim.

I don't think this duscussion/debate is pretty well getting fair. I just hope you will not disappoint me like any other OPPOSITION here who only love to give their oppositions without substantiation.

A "cynical" statement has no place in debate.

Shrug..number 1 is trying to prove a negative.
number 2.. it is well known that antiquities 18 is at least a modification ..and therefore it is up to the people who use that to demonstrate it existed before
the 4th century. Then, the use of a very Jewish term that Josephus scrupulously
avoided must be accounted for. I noticed you didn't try to COUNTER any of my arguments.. just ignored them.

You also are just whining and complaining about my arguement against Tacitus.
Can you demonstrate he did not get his information from Christians, and show me that he is actually an independant source?

You are not countering my claims.. you are just dismissing them out of hand.

If you want to claim those are GREAT sources.. well that is your problem, not mine.
I have to wonder why you can't find any secular sources from within 60 years of the alleged execution to begin with. If the stories of Jesus in the gospels were at ALL accurate, then some note about him would be from a non-Christian source from his lifetime could be expected. If the Christians weren't so sensetive about the fact there IS not evidence for this super guy, they wouldn't be doing forgeries such as antiquities 18 to begin with

Hi goat,

I would like to remind you, just in case you are not aware of it, that your are in a very odd position in this debate... your appeal to use Argument from Silence. has no place in this discussion.

Surely you can't support your claim. It is very evident is this exchanges. My argument for you is plain and simple. Don't ever tell us here that you are proving the negative. No you're not proving a negative case here.

If and truly if, Jesus' existence was a mere fable, fiction or fraud, why there were no counter movement in the early years of existence of Christianity? Why secular and Christian critics would rather quote a negative remarks to Christians than proving its false claims?

It is very evident that you cannot support your claim against Jesus existence in flesh and blood. You cannot produce evidence against Jesus' existence from ancient secular writings simply because even those Christian critics and anti-Christian empire acknowledged the existence of Jesus in flesh and blood.

When the earliest writings of Paul came into existence, most witnesses against and pro Jesus' movements were still alive and kicking... they could have easily refute the claims of Christians for their belief in Christ. But we don't find such. the earliest claim against the existence of Jesus can be traced back towards the 18th century (if my memory serves me right). During the persecutions in the 1st, 2nd centuries, all we can read is the writings of secular world against Christians. Their faith in Christ was a well known belief. They were willing to die for him. Obviously they (those against Christians) were very well informed about Christian religion.

If you consider that the proof against Christ existence is proving the negative, then you are in a very odd position to enter into this debate as your arguments are all empty and from silence.

You have no case against Christ existence, not because you are proving the negative but simply because you Argue from Silence.

Very disappointing.

[Goat]

I am sorry you are disappointed. However, Tacitus is not particular independant or convincing. It is a full 45 years after the Jewish revolt, with no knowledge what so ever where he got his information.. as well as getting many of the details incorrect.

Not convincing? Is this your own opinion???

Can you tell us what are those incorrect details you are talking about???

I was once a history student back when I was taking my Bachelor of Arts majoring in History (unfortunately abandoned it in favor for another degree), and I know how to appreciate pieces of evidence especially from ancient sources. Should there be a need to deal with Tacitus career in here, then let it be. I am most willing to confront you as well with reagards to this matter.

But as much as i WOULD LIKE TO, I guess what we are seeing in these exchanges of ours is a one sided presentation of evidence.

I have nothing to examine for your claim. ALL I was seeing here is your empty opposition. I understand your concern about Tacitus sources, which we can deal with more deeply as we go along in our discussion.

But I am desperately waiting for your evidence against Jesus' existence in flesh and blood. I am expecting mre than "cynical" statement. I am expecting a verifiable source of your claim.

I hope you will not disappoint me.

Maybe if you had something worthwhile to begin with there would be more of a discussion.

Huh??? Are you okay??? Do you think you have put something to start with in this discussion???

I am still waiting for the substantiation of your claim. Here, let me help you what you need to fill in for this discussion...

1. Verifiable sources on your claim against historicity of Jesus
2. Your claim against the writing of Josephesus
3. Your claim against the writing of Tacitus

While unsupported claims from your side are piling up every time you post against the evidences for my claim, you on the other hand still are incapable of providing us "verifiable" sources for your claim.

I don't think this duscussion/debate is pretty well getting fair. I just hope you will not disappoint me like any other OPPOSITION here who only love to give their oppositions without substantiation.

A "cynical" statement has no place in debate.

Shrug..number 1 is trying to prove a negative.
number 2.. it is well known that antiquities 18 is at least a modification ..and therefore it is up to the people who use that to demonstrate it existed before
the 4th century. Then, the use of a very Jewish term that Josephus scrupulously
avoided must be accounted for. I noticed you didn't try to COUNTER any of my arguments.. just ignored them.

You also are just whining and complaining about my arguement against Tacitus.
Can you demonstrate he did not get his information from Christians, and show me that he is actually an independant source?

You are not countering my claims.. you are just dismissing them out of hand.

If you want to claim those are GREAT sources.. well that is your problem, not mine.
I have to wonder why you can't find any secular sources from within 60 years of the alleged execution to begin with. If the stories of Jesus in the gospels were at ALL accurate, then some note about him would be from a non-Christian source from his lifetime could be expected. If the Christians weren't so sensetive about the fact there IS not evidence for this super guy, they wouldn't be doing forgeries such as antiquities 18 to begin with

Hi goat,

I would like to remind you, just in case you are not aware of it, that your are in a very odd position in this debate... your appeal to use Argument from Silence. has no place in this discussion.

Surely you can't support your claim. It is very evident is this exchanges. My argument for you is plain and simple. Don't ever tell us here that you are proving the negative. No you're not proving a negative case here.

If and truly if, Jesus' existence was a mere fable, fiction or fraud, why there were no counter movement in the early years of existence of Christianity? Why secular and Christian critics would rather quote a negative remarks to Christians than proving its false claims?

It is very evident that you cannot support your claim against Jesus existence in flesh and blood. You cannot produce evidence against Jesus' existence from ancient secular writings simply because even those Christian critics and anti-Christian empire acknowledged the existence of Jesus in flesh and blood.

When the earliest writings of Paul came into existence, most witnesses against and pro Jesus' movements were still alive and kicking... they could have easily refute the claims of Christians for their belief in Christ. But we don't find such. the earliest claim against the existence of Jesus can be traced back towards the 18th century (if my memory serves me right). During the persecutions in the 1st, 2nd centuries, all we can read is the writings of secular world against Christians. Their faith in Christ was a well known belief. They were willing to die for him. Obviously they (those against Christians) were very well informed about Christian religion.

If you consider that the proof against Christ existence is proving the negative, then you are in a very odd position to enter into this debate as your arguments are all empty and from silence.

You have no case against Christ existence, not because you are proving the negative but simply because you Argue from Silence.

Very disappointing.

No, I am not using the arguement for silence. I am not arguing the "Jesus" did not exist. I am actually arguing that the evidence presented is not sufficient to assume the Jesus in the Gospel or even Jesus the man existed.

Besides, the "arguement from silence" is not necessarily a logical fallacy. It is not an absolute.. but it is not a logical fallacy.

I personally state that there is insufficient independent evidence to show that the historical Jesus actually existed. The arguments I have been countering are the ones that people are insisting there IS the evidence, and I have been showing that the alleged evidence is either a forgery, not independant or insufficient.

Perhaps evidence can be found to show there was a historical Jesus. If the Ossurary of James was not found to be an outright forgery, that would have been
a good indication (not 100%) that Jesus existed.

However, with the evidence we currently have, it is insufficient to show there was a historical Jesus. This is not even addressing the supernatural claims

[McCulloch]

Actually it wasn't Jesus but Simeon ben Abinadad who was the Messiah. He was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. I'm willing to bet that your only argument against him is the argument from silence.

[ST_JB]

Actually it wasn't Jesus but Simeon ben Abinadad who was the Messiah. He was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. I'm willing to bet that your only argument against him is the argument from silence.

NONE SENSE!!!














__________________________
"Some people live in darkness not because of the absense of light but because of the absense of common sense. " - ST_JB