Does disbelief in the atoning cross

[Elijah John]

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

[Elijah John]

Yes, and as a reminder the OP is this:

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

And not..."did Jesus exist"? The OP assumes that he did. In fact, questions disputing his mere existence belong on C and A, not TD&D.

So...here's for you BC (and others):

viewtopic.php?p=856230#856230

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 79 by marco]


[center]A very weak defense[/center]

I assume you mean you are backing down and getting back to the OP, as I have suggested. My original statement was:

"They are not conclusive but they strongly suggest he did exist."

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps I mistook "they strongly suggest he did exist" for " I strongly suggest it".

You hint.. perhaps if you would make your own position clear.
I think you also mentioned that "That alone would suggest there is some truth in the story of Christ. "

Again, a hint.
I think I was assuming that it was your opinion that Jesus actually existed.

Did I assume incorrectly?

I'm always impressed by how clear questions and answer save so much time and frustration in debates. I should have asked you if you believed that Jesus existed or not right from the start.

We learn as we go.

I do think that when you say that Jesus did exist and that you aren't certain that he existed, you are contradicting yourself.

It's one or the other.
You believe that he actually existed or you do not believe that he actually existed.

Please make yourself clear.


1. Are you certain or not that Jesus existed?
2. How certain are you?
3, By what method did you establish that certainty?

I haven't changed this in any way. That you decide I have doesn't matter. You attach numerical probabilities where they don't apply. I ignore them.

So, I take it that you really do believe that Jesus really existed.
You state that as if you are pretty sure.

Then you say that nobody is certain.
I'd like to have a unequivocal answer for once.

If you don't like numbers.. don't use numbers.
Use your words.

I can't understand why you have not taken my advice to abandon an attempt at numerical probabilities.

I keep telling you why.
Your authority does not WORK in here. The argument from authority is LAME.

If you don't CARE about the numbers.. use WORDS.. just be clear if you can't use the numbers. I like numbers in probability statements because numbers are so very CLEAR.

Just state your position clearly and FORGET about how you express it. I would urge you to focus on the CONTENT not the MEDIUM.

And instead of being clear about the STATEMENT we have been going on and on about .. you want to ABANDON addressing the challenge. Sorry, but you made the statement and my challenge still stands.


It's up to you to defend your claim or not.


Avoiding it isn't addressing the challenge. DENYING that there is a challenge doesn't serve you EITHER.

Trying to change the subject is also a pathetic way to defend your assertion that Jesus actually existed.

If you state something in here YOU MIGHT BE CHALLENGED.
I'm challenging you.

You can do one of three things:

1. You can abandon defending your belief
2. You can explain how you arrived at your belief
3. You can change your mind about the existence of Jesus

You have not made any CASE for the existence of Jesus OTHER than that I should defer to your authority.

I want an actual ARGUMENT instead. Make a case if you have one.
The point of my challenge is to see how you got that wonderful belief in the first place.

Your authority doesn't serve you at all in here.
Denying that I am challenging you is.. bizarre.

Of course any statement is vague in that we are not claiming certainty, but "not firmly established" is a simple way of saying we cannot be certain.

Great.
We cannot be certain about the existence of Jesus.

Let's just be honest about that.
Let's not pretend that we ARE certain.

Let's be truthful, instead and admit that we just don't KNOW.

We should not CLAIM that he DID as if we DO know.
His existence is an UNKNOWN.

We should not then PRETEND to know. Or to say that he most likely EXISTS.
That's bogus as can be.

And that's precisely why I challenged you on it.
Ignoring bits of inconvenient reality isn't going to make it go away.

I'm really here.. really challenging your claim in a debate forum.

You can change your mind..
So can I, if someone were to convince me.

I believe he did.

Thanks for the clarification.
How did you come up with the belief?

You think we can work out the probability to seven decimal places - well fine, but don't expect me to discuss such a thing.

You write that as if you know I actually thought that way.
I don't.

I don't think that we can work out the probability to seven decimal places.
How about you stop guessing at my position and save us all a bit of time?

I expect you to explain how you have established that Jesus did exist.
Because as far as I know.. ( and agree with you ) it's UNCERTAIN.

How can you possibly say that he existed if you aren't certain?
Your position doesn't make any sense to me.

It matters little to me whether you believe Christ existed or not.

I'm not at all discussing my belief about the existence of Jesus.
I have my estimate. But that's not the point at all.

You have yours.
You say you believe that Jesus really existed.

I'd really like to know why.

I challenge your CLAIM.
I think you are pulling that high probability out of your hat.

But whatever.. we don't know because you don't say OTHER than by using the fallacious argument from authority that you seem so fond of. Do you have any OTHER reason than that?

I think he did.

You say you believe and you think that Jesus really existed.
Fine.

How did you establish that probability?
Your reluctance to say indicates a problem for your thinking in that regard. I suspect that "you don't know".

Thinking that Jesus existed when you don't think it's been established firmly or with any certainty.. is more likely to be a bad bet.

What DATA are you establishing your estimate on?
When you don't say.. I don't know.

For all I know.. you can be pulling it out of your hat.
By magic.

And I don't evaluate this at a chance of 0.865 or any such rubbish.

Precision like that seems to be rubbish to you.
Weird for a math teacher.

Use your words if you can't use your numbers then.. I think you used the word "HIGH". In percentages.. I'd say high is over 90.

He may have, he probably did, I suspect he did, perhaps he did, it is fairly certain he did -

That's quite the range. It's all over the map.
From about 0 to 99 percent.

I'd like to know how you established that "high" probability.

all say roughly that we don't know but going on what we've read, we can form some judgment.

I'd like to know how you established your judgement that Jesus DID exist.

You seem to have formed your view from reading a historian who has taught himself how to use Bayes' Theorem.

It did have an influence, yes.
I was impressed by his presentation.

However, my estimate isn't what we are discussing right now, but YOURS.
Your estimate is HIGH.. I'd like to know why you say so.

Because, perhaps, my estimate is wrong.
You say the probability is high.. so I'd LIKE to know how you obtained that high number.

Perhaps somebody else used the hypergeometric distribution or an approximation to the Normal to get some other result. Who knows, or cares?

You don't care what other people think?... Or know?

Is that how you base your probabilities?
Lack of caring and knowledge?

I'm not sure that you have used THOSE two methods.. I'd really like to know what ACTUAL method you used to evaluate Jesus's existence?

I have said enough on this out-of-context subject and we should discuss the OP properly.

Said ENOUGH?

You just said that I should defer to your authority. That's not much.

You want to abandon being challenged on your own assertion.
That happens so often in here.

People do seem to want to assert assert assert.
People REALLY resent resent resent being challenged, don't they?
Some people mistake debate for a chance to opine.

Some people get upset when their opinions get challenged in here.
Some teachers get irritated if their "students" challenge their authority.

The argument from authority fails utterly.
Not expecting challenges in here is unrealistic.

If you want to pursue the arithmetic of Christ's existence, start a new thread. There may well be people who have an appetite for such imaginative play.

If you want to assert whatever you like without getting challenged, perhaps you can go to another part of the Forum where challenges are NOT ALLOWED.

Calling challenges to your claims PLAY is misconstruing the nature of DEBATES.

And merely condescension.
Another extremely weak defense of your claim that Jesus existed.

[marco]

Thanks for the clarification.

Glad to help though I see you're still not clear about what I meant when I said that I thought Jesus did exist. Oh, well. I did point out why but it's easy to miss when there's so much material to read. But now, having clarified all this extraneous stuff, we can happily examine the real question.

Regarding Christ's atoning for sins it would be interesting to discover in what way Christ was able to make up for the wrong that others did. Are you comfortable with atonement theory or do you find there are flaws? It would be fascinating to find out.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 82 by marco]

Glad to help though I see you're still not clear about what I meant when I said that I thought Jesus did exist.

It seems that you are saying that Jesus did exist.
What am I missing?

[marco]

[Replying to post 82 by marco]

Glad to help though I see you're still not clear about what I meant when I said that I thought Jesus did exist.

It seems that you are saying that Jesus did exist.
What am I missing?

That, as Hamlet said, is the question.

Perhaps the fact that we're discussing Christ atoning for sin, but there are lots of other possibilities beyond the wit of Marco to guess. Seek, as the good Lord said, and ye shall find. And perhaps it will be an answer to the OP. Have a good day.

[Blastcat]

[center]
To be honest or not to be honest, that is the confession[/center]

It seems that you are saying that Jesus did exist.
What am I missing?

That, as Hamlet said, is the question.

Perhaps the fact that we're discussing Christ atoning for sin, but there are lots of other possibilities beyond the wit of Marco to guess. Seek, as the good Lord said, and ye shall find. And perhaps it will be an answer to the OP. Have a good day.

To abandon or not to abandon, that is YOUR question.
Yeah, I get it.

It's A LOT easier to make a claim than to have to DEFEND it, right?
Too bad for you.. you made a claim.

Way way worse for you, I noticed it.

Whataryagonnado?


You were the one who broke in with that "Jesus exists" business.


So, what have you decided to do about that wonderful claim of yours?


1. Are you abandoning the defense of your claim?
2. Are you explaining how you arrived at your conclusion?
3. Are you changing your mind about the existence of Jesus?
4. Are you going to the new thread concerning the existence of Jesus that Elijah John was so kind as to set up for us?

Because if you do think you've had enough.. you can abandon your claim.
It would be a grand event.

Most people never admit to such a crushing defeat.


( rhetoric is fun, proving your point is even funner )

See ya around.

[marco]

Most people never admit to such a crushing defeat.

I wonder why.

I am amused that the statement: Jesus probably did exist - has been so controversial for you so thanks for the smile.

I would probably be unequal to a full-blown discussion of the existence proposition on the other thread given the armaments that would be ranged against me. But one never knows.

Have a good day.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 86 by marco]

I am amused that the statement: Jesus probably did exist - has been so controversial for you so thanks for the smile.

It amuses me that you are so easily amused.
Thanks for that one too.

[Bust Nak]

To be honest or not to be honest, that is the confession

Moderator Comment

There is an implication of dishonesty here. Please mind your tone.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.