Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 4)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1264 Posts

Posted - 11/25/2002 :  19:34:16  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message
Once again, it is time to restart this thread due to length. So, without further ado, here we go!

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  10:51:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message

quote:
Sorry DA but if you had established anything, other than your blind adherence to an obvious fairy tale, you wouldn't have to keep calling everyone names, you could just present the evidence. Yes, the nature of any historical inquiry is indeed probative. That is, the valadity of a claim is based on providing proof or evidence. That is why Jesus fails as an historic figure as there is neither.
Slater why don't you just answer my question,what COMPETENT CLASSICAL,HISTORIC,OR EVEN NT SCHOARLSHIP[b] supports your iconoclastic view that Jesus didn't exist? Since I already [b]KNOW the answer I don't see how you can say I am believing a "fairy tale" for acknowledging the historic evidence for Jesus existence.However,since I know you will REFUSE to answer,and probably create a smoke screen to avoid it.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/26/2002 10:53:59
Go to Top of Page

ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular

641 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  11:35:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ConsequentAtheist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos

... I don't see how you can say I am believing a "fairy tale" for acknowledging the historic evidence for Jesus existence.

What evidence, specificaly?

For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.
Go to Top of Page

Slater
SFN Regular

USA
1668 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  14:24:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Slater a Private Message
Exactly.
For DA to acknowledge the evidence he would have to have it.
If you have evidence present it.
If you don't then stop your bitching.

-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  23:03:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Exactly.
For DA to acknowledge the evidence he would have to have it.
If you have evidence present it.
If you don't then stop your bitching
Just what I predicted more smokescreens.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  23:09:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Slater's dogmatic assertions that there's no evidence for Jesus'existence in spite of even "hostile
witness's"testimony,see below)

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he Jesus Seminars scholars Crossan
and Borg admit"That he[Jesus]was crucified is as SURE AS ANYTHING HISTORICAL CAN EVER BE,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just one you fail to acknoledge.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page

Slater
SFN Regular

USA
1668 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2002 :  23:39:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Slater a Private Message
Again...The Jesus Seminar's purpose was to promote a Historic 100% human Jesus.
They can say that it is "as sure as anything historical can be," but they are lying when they do so. There is no evidence for an historic Jesus. They cannot back up their claims.
What problem do you have with this? The JS presented no evidence. Look as hard as you can YOU cannot find any evidence. There is no evidence to be found.
Without evidence of an historic Jesus you cannot claim that there was one. That is simple honesty...something Christians apparently know nothing about. Please stop your lying.

-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2002 :  00:06:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
Good luck slater. You're asking someone for evidence that thinks saying there is evidence is evidence.

@tomic

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

Computer Org
Skeptic Friend

392 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2002 :  13:16:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Computer Org a Private Message
Sir darwin alogos, while I fully agree with your contention (along with 93.602% of the world) that Jesus was a real, historical person; and while Slater's deeper agenda was made plain and clear in earlier posts (--one with which I do not nescessarily disagree--), when you post:
quote:


An anecdote:

Two years ago, I bought a roughly top-of-the line Compaq laptop (~$2,500 worth). The first step was to charge the battery.

I plugged it in, configured a few things, and put it into hibernate while it spent the next 2 hours charging the battery. For whatever reason, I left the lid about 30-degrees open.

I laid down to read (and snooze) but was awakened by the sound of the hard drive grinding. I took me a few minutes to figure out that that shouldn't have (--Bull!--couldn't have--) been happening. Not without some action on my part.

The drive sound was something other than a computer moving out of hibernation into fully-awake mode: I got up and, sure enough, there was WinMe alive and ready but with the hard drive still grinding up a storm.

For a lot of reasons (--I don't know how to monitor the ports, nor how to shut them down----I am not connected to the Web nor to any other Network--), I came to believe that someone else was in control of my computer.

Some months later, Forbes Magazine published a one-pager about the existence of software that could be used to remotely control a computer. My beliefs turned to utter convictions.

I don't know how to get rid of the external controllers so my laptop has been in a drawer for nearly a year. [:knockout:]

I plan to migrate from WinMe to either OpenBSD or FreeBSD in the hopes that my computer will, once again, be my computer.

As to why such a thing might happen: I give you the efforts of SETI and the many uses that large, multi-processor quasi-SuperComputers are routinely used for (--breaking codes, cracking genetic structures, studing the characteristics of bio-molecules, simulating nuclear interactions, etc.).

Anyway: On the subject of computer security, I am nearly phobic.

, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Logic alone decries even the remote possibility that Jesus could have been crucified by the Roman Military Establishment.

Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff
Go to Top of Page

Computer Org
Skeptic Friend

392 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2002 :  13:27:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Computer Org a Private Message
Ah, well. That didn't work out too well. (Stupid Public Library computers!) Maybe I missed the "C" in the Control-C". And frogot to Preview.

What I meant, Sir darwin argos, to quote from your writing was:
quote:
"That he[Jesus]was crucified is as SURE AS ANYTHING HISTORICAL CAN EVER BE,"
Most sorry about that blot-----a previously saved-post of mine to another BB. Am I a or what????

Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff
Go to Top of Page

Slater
SFN Regular

USA
1668 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2002 :  16:59:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Slater a Private Message
CO my deeper agenda is to stick with the facts.
The truth cannot be reached by democratic means. If 93.602% of the world (where did you get that number from?) votes that someting is real it still will not pop into existence.
Things either exist or they do not. The state is completely independent of desire of people.
An historic Jesus is not necessarily the "Christ." Atheism has nothing to do with historicity of Jesus. Evidence has everything to do with it.
We cannot say that there was an historic Jesus because there is no evidence that even hints that there might have been.

It is easy enough to prove me wrong. The degree of evidence for persons of this period is fairly lax. But we still have nothing.

-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/28/2002 :  03:14:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Just what I predicted more smokescreens.


Just what I predicted, no evidence.
Go to Top of Page

Antie
Skeptic Friend

USA
101 Posts

Posted - 11/28/2002 :  06:28:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Antie's Homepage  Send Antie an ICQ Message Send Antie a Private Message
> (along with 93.602% of the world) that Jesus was a real

Are you sure about that figure? It seems too high, I think.

> The degree of evidence for persons of this period is fairly lax. But
> we still have nothing.

If one truly believes that Jesus was a real, living person, then he or she will have no trouble finding support for his or her belief.

Antie. DIES GAUDII.


Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum

If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart.
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2002 :  07:02:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message

Starman:Just what I predicted, no evidence Oh brother!Lets take this real slooow, while I agree with Slater that Truth is not determined by Gallup Polls.His real problem is that I am not talking about settling the issue through a vote. But merely asking since your view[that Jesus never existed] is so far out in left field do you have ANY support from those who are EXPERTS (ie Historians,&Classical Scholars)in that field? Now I've ask it many times in many ways an the answer is always SILENCE and its deafening for his position,and he knows it thats why he'll create a smokescreen to avoid admiting it.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2002 :  07:22:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message

As far as me not presenting "EVIDENCE" for my view or that I think just claiming something"is Evidence makes it so"is vastly confusing the issue . First, as I have pointed out many times the New Testament is a collection of 27 documents which contain information the life of Jesus,the chief being for this thread is his existence .Now like it or not if this were a case on trial these documents would be submitted as Evidence in a court of law.Secondly there are numerous corroborating indices both within the documents and with out surrounding the same time period supporting his existence and their trustworthiness.

To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny?
Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/29/2002 07:28:41
Go to Top of Page

Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular

USA
1447 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2002 :  08:24:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Tokyodreamer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
...there are numerous corroborating indices both within the documents and with out surrounding the same time period supporting his existence and their trustworthiness.



This is simply not true.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.51 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000