A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Evolution? What is evolution? Oh, I remember..something about reptiles evolving into birds. Yeah, I handled that pretty well by stating that I've never observed it in nature

This is the most nonsensical statement ever.:-s :shock: :?

So what if you did not observed it directly?
That does not mean it did not happen.
Have you not heard of circumstantial evidence?

Q: Did you directly observed your birth? No.
Q: Do you believe you exist? :)))

Also it is impossible for a human with a lifespan of few decades to directly observe evolution of dinosaurs into birds which occurred over hundreds of millions of years. 8-)
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

User avatar
Willum
Under Probation
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 218 by For_The_Kingdom]

Point of order:
Reptiles are vertebrates that have scales on at least some part of their body, leathery or hard-shelled eggs, and share a number of other features. Snakes, lizards, turtles, crocodilians, and birds are reptiles. Like all vertebrates, reptiles have bony skeletons that support their bodies.
So birds are born from reptiles all the time.

Now you may contest evolution, but it has recently been observed and now proven.

Evolution was an considered a fact back in Aristotelian days, only Christianity's destruction of this contradicting knowledge allowed us to be set back in this observation.
Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains.
This is a test: Had this been an actual revolution, the virus would have been much stronger.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Who would be proud these tactics?

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

benchwarmer wrote: You repeated this a lot:
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Joint team effort
I tend to want to speak the truth as much as possible.
benchwarmer wrote: but you still never directly answered the question. I wonder why that is?
The question was answered.
benchwarmer wrote: The closest you got was alluding to the fact it's preferred to have believers help out, but not required. Care to comment on why you think it's preferred?
The same reason I'd prefer to have my son go hunting with me or assist with mechanical work on the car. You know, Father/Son bonding kind of stuff.
benchwarmer wrote: Wouldn't a direct message from God be a whole lot more convincing than fallible humans trying to convince people they need to be 'saved'?
If there was a better way to do it, it would be done.
benchwarmer wrote: You would have a valid analogy if science was only found in books. Sadly this analogy falls flat in the biology labs.
The books are supposed to represent what goes on in the lab.
benchwarmer wrote: You sure throw that word around a lot. Is that your method for 'soul saving'? Instead of providing solid and respectful answers to hard questions a few back handed insults are the order of the day?
I don't recall insulting anyone.
benchwarmer wrote: After all the painstaking time we take to provide multiple answers to your anti science rants
There is no anti-science rants...there is anti-macroevolution rants. The problem is where you guys believe that an attack on evolution is also an attack on science..and I simply disagree.
benchwarmer wrote: That's odd, in another thread you are accusing disciples who've left as never having been 'in the faith'. Which is it?
I don't see the correlation in what I said and what you are talking about.

benchwarmer wrote: You got me, I took some liberties using a famous euphemism.

How about a direct quote:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 12:36 New International Version (NIV)
36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

Seems like God is going to be having a chat with everyone. Right there in my 'dusty' Bible. Well, online Bible in this case :)
Dusty Bible (figuratively speaking), is one thing. Reading comprehension; that is another thing...

God having a chat with someone on judgement day doesn't mean that the person in question wasn't saved prior to the chat.
benchwarmer wrote: LOL. SMH. ?
As needed.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 1639
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am

Post by benchwarmer »

Clearly not getting anywhere with the rest, so I'll focus on this:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
benchwarmer wrote: That's odd, in another thread you are accusing disciples who've left as never having been 'in the faith'. Which is it?
I don't see the correlation in what I said and what you are talking about.
The correlation is this: You claim that people who once believed and left, never 'really' believed. Is it your contention that they didn't become disciples upon first believing?

Let's go at this another way:

When you were young, you likely believed in Santa, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, or any other manner of fairy tales based on your culture. When you grew up, you stopped believing because you discovered evidence that overrode your previous belief and had no choice but to change your stance.

What you are saying is tantamount to claiming that children never really believed in Santa/EasterBunny/etc., and were somehow 'faking' it. Just like former Christians who I guess you think were 'faking' it.

I'm trying to drill down to why some Christians make this ridiculous claim that previous believers never really believed?

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 224 by benchwarmer]
I'm trying to drill down to why some Christians make this ridiculous claim that previous believers never really believed?
There were a number of Born Again Christians (BACs) who frequented the now defunct Amazon forums and who frequently referred to this escape clause. Apparently BACs have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and once that occurs it can not be reversed. To overcome the obvious contradiction of this when BACs lost their faith, they had to come up with an explanation. It would appear that the only way to be sure someone is a true BAC is to have them die without ever becoming an apostate. Just another one of the catalogue of loopholes that Christians have created to shore up deficiencies in their religion.

:study:

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

benchwarmer wrote: Clearly not getting anywhere with the rest
You ain't getting nowhere...because you can't rebuttal the truth.
benchwarmer wrote: The correlation is this: You claim that people who once believed and left, never 'really' believed. Is it your contention that they didn't become disciples upon first believing?
As far as we, in our finite knowledge and presence could tell, they did...but in God's infinite knowledge and presence, maybe they didn't.
benchwarmer wrote: Let's go at this another way:

When you were young, you likely believed in Santa, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, or any other manner of fairy tales based on your culture. When you grew up, you stopped believing because you discovered evidence that overrode your previous belief and had no choice but to change your stance.

What you are saying is tantamount to claiming that children never really believed in Santa/EasterBunny/etc., and were somehow 'faking' it. Just like former Christians who I guess you think were 'faking' it.

I'm trying to drill down to why some Christians make this ridiculous claim that previous believers never really believed?
I think a better analogy would be a woman who thinks she found the man of her dreams..a man who treats her how she believes she deserves to be treated..

But over time, the man begins to physically abuse her and mistreat her in more ways than one..

Then the woman begins to think..."this man was never the man of my dreams"..because in her "dreams", the man didn't treat her that way..so the man in her dreams and the man in real life are two different men.

So the woman ultimately decides that the man was never "the one"...because "the one" will never treat her that way.

I don't believe your analogy is accurate, because, as I look from my Christian "lens", Christianity is true...and since it is true, there is no amount of evidence that you can find which will negate its truth value..

So if you decide to leave, it isn't based on any adequate evidence to the contrary...you left because of something "else".

A true believer ain't going nowhere.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote:
This is the most nonsensical statement ever.:-s :shock: :?

So what if you did not observed it directly?
That does not mean it did not happen.
No, it doesn't mean that it did not happen. But it does mean that I have no scientific reasons to BELIEVE that it did happen. So what do I do with naturalistic claims of which has no scientific backing?

Answer: I don't believe it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Have you not heard of circumstantial evidence?
I don't see any circumstantial evidence.
alexxcJRO wrote: Q: Did you directly observed your birth? No.
Q: Do you believe you exist? :)))
I have evidence for my birth, though. If I doubt my existence, then who is there to do the doubting? Me....I doubt, therefore, I exist.

See how that works?
alexxcJRO wrote: Also it is impossible for a human with a lifespan of few decades to directly observe evolution of dinosaurs into birds which occurred over hundreds of millions of years. 8-)
So, let me get this straight; no one living at any arbitrary point in history will EVER observe it? So no one living in the past ever saw it...no one living in the present will ever see it...and no one living in the future will ever see it.

You don't see the con/scam in this? It is clearly a scam.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by liamconnor »

Jagella wrote: Some of you may be familiar with the argument from silence advanced by many mythicists in which it is claimed that the historians of the early first century never mentioned Jesus. If he really lived, then how could they have missed him? One person in particular who might be expected to have mentioned Jesus is Philo of Alexandria. Richard Carrier writes:
Philo made pilgrimages to Jerusalem and knew about Palestinian affairs and wrote about the Herods and Pontius Pilate. And Christians must have begun evangelizing the Jewish community in Alexandria almost immediately: it was the single largest population center, with a large and diverse Jewish Community, almost directly adjacent to Judea, along a well-established trade route well traveled by Jewish pilgrims. So it's not as if Philo would not have heard of their claims even if he had never left Egypt; and yet we know he did, having traveled to Judea and Rome. Moreover, Philo just happens to be one Jew of the period whose work Christians bothered to preserve. He would not have been alone. (1)
To counter this argument, historicists have come up with an ad hoc explanation: Jesus was a small-time preacher who would not have been noticed by historians like Philo. Although this argument might seem superficially convincing, it argues against another historicist claim: Jesus inspired the New Testament writers to make a god out of him decades after he died.

So will the real Jesus please stand up? Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived, or was he such a powerful, big-time figure that many years after his death he was deified?

(1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 294

Since the debate as gone off into questions of Evolution (not even remotely related to the OP), let's get it back on track.

The Logic of the argument embedded in the OP is that a small-time preacher, appreciated by a minority of disciples, could not, later, be made into a big deal by those very disicples...?

Put another way: logically it is impossible for disciples to make grandiose claims about their teacher after that teacher has passed away.

Obviously the argument is false.

Perhaps we should move on...

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: No, it doesn't mean that it did not happen. But it does mean that I have no scientific reasons to BELIEVE that it did happen. So what do I do with naturalistic claims of which has no scientific backing?
"Scientific support

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[17][18][19][20][21] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I don't see any circumstantial evidence.
Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).

Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.

Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.

Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

In fact the circumstantial evidence for Jesus ressurection is far more weak then the circumstantial evidence which points to evolution. Yet you believe in the first but not the latter.

Q: How is that possible? :-s :shock: :?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I have evidence for my birth, though. If I doubt my existence, then who is there to do the doubting? Me....I doubt, therefore, I exist. 

See how that works? 
Off course you have. My point was to show how moronic is to say “I've never observed it in nature�.

For_The_Kingdom wrote: So, let me get this straight; no one living at any arbitrary point in history will EVER observe it? So no one living in the past ever saw it...no one living in the present will ever see it...and no one living in the future will ever see it. 

You don't see the con/scam in this? It is clearly a scam.
God(Yahweh) creating the universe.

So, let me get this straight; no one no one living at any arbitrary point in history has EVER observed it? So no one living in the past ever saw it...no one living in the present will ever see it...and no one living in the future will ever see it. 
You don't see the con/scam in this? It is clearly a scam.

Q: See how moronic it sounds? :)
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7721
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by Clownboat »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Readers, please decide for yourselves whether or not Clownboat and TiredoftheNonsense are the same poster. Look at my debate with TOTN on the resurrection, and also this short discussion on this thread.

I can make a case that they are the same person. I won't on this thread, though. PM me and I will make the case.
Readers:
I want to clearify that I have found TiredoftheNonsense's posts about alternatives to the resurrection to be a very good argument that to date have yet to be countered by any follower of the Christian religion, no matter their flavor.

So, because I have found his argument to be convincing, I find it credible and relevant to post here when discussing the options for what might have happened to the corpse of Jesus.

That the actual argument was not addressed, but instead an empty claim about two posters being the same only furthers my understanding about the strength of the alternative that is found in the Bible for why Joseph's tomb was not the final resting place for Jesus.

I am not the poster Tiredofthenonsense, but I sure do find the alternative found in the Bible that he has studiously pointed out as convincing...
You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible being’s wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

Post Reply