It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plagiarism In The Bible

page: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine


Depending on what it is, archeological evidence is contemporaneous documentation. Egyptian hieroglyphics, for example, are contemporaneous documentation (assuming they can be dated to a specific time).


Bingo! But, except for hieroglyphics, I doubt we'd be able to interpret much of it *unless* we relied on non-contemporaneous historical records. Make sense?
edit on 20-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because:





posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Well my whole point was that the issue of whether or not Jesus existed isn't settled and that the extra-biblical sources are all still hotly debated.


And my point is that they aren't. It's my understanding that the two sources I mentioned are, by and large, considered by historians solid evidence that Jesus existed, which is *why* there's not a huge debate raging except on the fringes (like rationalwiki and conservapedia.)



That's why my position on the subject is undetermined. If you want to believe he existed, that's fine. With so little information and sources it's easy to draw either conclusion. So when I talk about Jesus, I like to put the caveat "if he existed" near it. I'm by no means saying he didn't exist. Just that I don't know.


Right. But I don't think it's worth doubting, any more than it is worth doubting that Hannibal crossed the Alps. If you confine yourself to what you *know* without a doubt to be true, you should be a solipsist.



Though if he did exist, all the claims in the bible of him doing miracles or raising from the dead, I can say that THAT is all fake. If there is any truth to those claims, it's probably due to superstitious people retelling a story many times before writing it down so much so that the original idea got warped to the extreme (telephone game).


Or, it might have actually happened.
It's easy to sit back and scoff at the supernatural from our Western fantasyland (forgive me, I'm presuming you're a Westerner because you use English and have "Maryland" as your location, but that might be a poor assumption) but the hard materialist position you hold to is in the minority. Even my materialist *disposition* is a historical oddity.

As a case in point, I learned the other day that *apparently* exorcisms of demons is commonplace in Ethiopia. Or, to use another example, we have *contemporaneous evidence* of supernatural events happening in New England back around the time of the Salem Witch Trials. (I'm not talking about rolling of eyes and speaking of tongues; more like floating and such.) Now, I'm *no* fan of the Salem Witch Trials, and find them abhorrent. But at the same time, we have records of eyewitnesses testifying to supernatural events. Am I convinced? I don't really know what to think. But I can tell you that if, instead, I was reading something about, say, random local gossip instead of possessed people floating through the air, I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

Like I said, I'm not always certain what to think about such accounts. But I *am* certain that there are myriads of humans who have testified to them, and it seems incredibly arrogant to me to hand-wave them aside because they don't fit one's paradigm.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
And my point is that they aren't. It's my understanding that the two sources I mentioned are, by and large, considered by historians solid evidence that Jesus existed, which is *why* there's not a huge debate raging except on the fringes (like rationalwiki and conservapedia.)


You think so? There is also a wikipedia page on that very topic as well. I used rationalWiki because it more rounds out the idea.

Historicity of Jesus

Here's Wikipedia's take on it:


Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[35][36] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[37][38][39][40]

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[41] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[42] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[43] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[42][44][45][46][47][48][48][49][50]



The Christ Myth Theory

The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[139] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[140]

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[141][142][143] Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived.[144]


Now the wikipedia article does say that most scholars accept that he is real, but that doesn't mean the debate of his existence is over or not.


Or, it might have actually happened.
It's easy to sit back and scoff at the supernatural from our Western fantasyland (forgive me, I'm presuming you're a Westerner because you use English and have "Maryland" as your location, but that might be a poor assumption) but the hard materialist position you hold to is in the minority. Even my materialist *disposition* is a historical oddity.


You are starting to formulate a bandwagon appeal fallacy. Keep in mind, just because it is widely accepted or believed doesn't make it true.


As a case in point, I learned the other day that *apparently* exorcisms of demons is commonplace in Ethiopia. Or, to use another example, we have *contemporaneous evidence* of supernatural events happening in New England back around the time of the Salem Witch Trials. (I'm not talking about rolling of eyes and speaking of tongues; more like floating and such.) Now, I'm *no* fan of the Salem Witch Trials, and find them abhorrent. But at the same time, we have records of eyewitnesses testifying to supernatural events. Am I convinced? I don't really know what to think. But I can tell you that if, instead, I was reading something about, say, random local gossip instead of possessed people floating through the air, I'd believe it in a heartbeat.


Humans are superstitious and fearful. It is likely that these people experienced things that they didn't understand chalked them up to demons or magic. Have you ever heard of an incubus? (No, not the band). It is basically the male form of a succubus. Let me give you a description of how one supposedly torments people.


An incubus is a demon in male form who, according to mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleepers, especially women, in order to engage in sexual activity with them.


Does that description sound familiar? Like maybe a certain sleep phenomenon that people experience?


Sleep paralysis is a phenomenon in which a person, either falling asleep or awakening, temporarily experiences an inability to move, speak or react. It is a transitional state between wakefulness and sleep characterized by complete muscle atonia (muscle weakness). It is often accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (such as an intruder in the room) to which one is unable to react due to paralysis, and physical experiences (such as strong current running through the upper body).



Like I said, I'm not always certain what to think about such accounts. But I *am* certain that there are myriads of humans who have testified to them, and it seems incredibly arrogant to me to hand-wave them aside because they don't fit one's paradigm.


Yes there are myriads of humans who have reported such things. How many of those accounts were aided by the person's personal religion (confirmation bias)?

Not every human is educated enough to be able to be able to logically discern what is and isn't happening to them. Most just chalk it up to the supernatural without looking into possible answers. Confirmation bias is one of the biggest things holding human thought back. One must try their hardest to eliminate their preconceived ideas when studying new things. One must be willing to let go of everything they thought was true when new evidence is put forward. Many people cannot do that, or don't know any better. So they turn to superstition to explain things like sleep paralysis.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




And my point is that they aren't. It's my understanding that the two sources I mentioned are, by and large, considered by historians solid evidence that Jesus existed, which is *why* there's not a huge debate raging except on the fringes (like rationalwiki and conservapedia.)


Josephus forgeries are so hotly contested and debated, by all historians except for the most hard core of the apologetics, that even the most conservative Christian sites admit that the Josephus citations do nothing, one way or the other, to prove or to disprove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.


Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Honestly, I can't see how any scholar that is familiar with the works of Josephus could ever think that Josephus would write in this way about this topic. It's absolutely atypical of his writing style and his attention to historical detail!

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus ever mention Jesus of Nazareth, which is exactly what is needed to prove his existence. Not some random reference to the title "Christ" which was usurped by many, and even the Bible has Jesus warning of the many " claiming to be Christs". The way these historians write of the "Chrestians" it's no wonder that Paul and his followers separated themselves from and denounced the title, callinjg themselves "Nazarene" and "Followers of The Way".



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Now the wikipedia article does say that most scholars accept that he is real, but that doesn't mean the debate of his existence is over or not.


Certainly, and I don't remember trying to argue that the debate of his existence was over! That would be a self-defeating premise! I was merely echoing the All-Knowing Wiki in saying that "by and large" (or "most scholars," if you prefer) Jesus is accepted to have been a real person.



Yes there are myriads of humans who have reported such things. How many of those accounts were aided by the person's personal religion (confirmation bias)?

Not every human is educated enough to be able to be able to logically discern what is and isn't happening to them. Most just chalk it up to the supernatural without looking into possible answers. Confirmation bias is one of the biggest things holding human thought back. One must try their hardest to eliminate their preconceived ideas when studying new things. One must be willing to let go of everything they thought was true when new evidence is put forward. Many people cannot do that, or don't know any better. So they turn to superstition to explain things like sleep paralysis.


Yup, I'm familiar with sleep paralysis and the incubi/succubi stuff. And I don't think something is true just because most people think it is; I simply think that it's foolhardy to dismiss something so widely believed without broader examination (perhaps you've performed this, but all I've seen is handwaving.) And I'm well aware of confirmation bias, which is manifesting prominently in your post



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Certainly, and I don't remember trying to argue that the debate of his existence was over! That would be a self-defeating premise! I was merely echoing the All-Knowing Wiki in saying that "by and large" (or "most scholars," if you prefer) Jesus is accepted to have been a real person.


Right, so it isn't necessarily wrong not to have an opinion on the matter. If I don't feel like the evidence is substantial enough to agree with most scholars, then I won't. I like saying I don't know better.


Yup, I'm familiar with sleep paralysis and the incubi/succubi stuff. And I don't think something is true just because most people think it is; I simply think that it's foolhardy to dismiss something so widely believed without broader examination (perhaps you've performed this, but all I've seen is handwaving.) And I'm well aware of confirmation bias, which is manifesting prominently in your post


Well I wasn't accusing you of using a bandwagon appeal. I was just trying to warn you before you did. No offense meant or anything.

Here's the thing about my confirmation bias. First, I would NEVER suggest that I didn't have my own confirmation biases. I'm human just like everyone else and that means I have the same flaws as everyone else. That being said, I've been looking into conspiracies, aliens, ghosts, etc since I was 10ish and started watching the X-Files, which opened me up to these ideas. Book series like the Area 51 books opened up my mind to ancient aliens. I used to love watching Ghost Adventures (not so much Ghost Hunters though) and got to know about all the different ghost "catching" equipment ghost hunters use. I've looked into NDE's. I've looked into just about everything this site has to offer.

Then the show Ancient Aliens came out. I liked it, but wanted to know what the counterpoints to its "evidence" was. So I started looking online and found these forums and signed up. I've always been a curious person who wants to know how things work and behave. When I was in third grade I once stood in front of a water fountain just looking at it, trying to imagine the mechanics on how it worked (not pretending it shot water up through magic, but ACTUAL mechanics).

But one thing I found while being on these forums that is plaguing most pseudo-sciences and religious beliefs is a DEEP confirmation bias. The inability to separate belief from research. I started applying it to just about everything that I've been fascinated about and found that it is everywhere. This is why I became an agnostic. It lets me still hope that these things are real, but still allows the logical part of me to dismiss most of the crazy. But over the course of my tenure here on this website, I've found that it is just safer to side with accepted science for all these things. There ARE rational explanations for most of the stuff on this website, people just want to deny them (mostly because they don't fully understand the science, but that is to be expected since science isn't easy to understand).

By the by. I've learned more about evolution and other mainstream science topics thanks to debating pseudo-science types on these forums.
edit on 20-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Josephus forgeries are so hotly contested and debated, by all historians except for the most hard core of the apologetics, that even the most conservative Christian sites admit that the Josephus citations do nothing, one way or the other, to prove or to disprove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.


Is Wikipedia a conservative Christian site? Because that's what I'm citing

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
[
Right, so it isn't necessarily wrong not to have an opinion on the matter. If I don't feel like the evidence is substantial enough to agree with most scholars, then I won't. I like saying I don't know better.


That seems much more reasonable (to me) than saying that there is zero evidence Jesus existed




Well I wasn't accusing you of using a bandwagon appeal. I was just trying to warn you before you did. No offense meant or anything.


Nope, it's fine! I'd prefer to be warned. You've been very civil, and I appreciate it




Here's the thing about my confirmation bias. First, I would NEVER suggest that I didn't have my own confirmation biases. I'm human just like everyone else and that means I have the same flaws as everyone else. That being said, I've been looking into conspiracies, aliens, ghosts, etc since I was 10ish and started watching the X-Files, which opened me up to these ideas. Book series like the Area 51 books opened up my mind to ancient aliens. I used to love watching Ghost Adventures (not so much Ghost Hunters though) and got to know about all the different ghost "catching" equipment ghost hunters use. I've looked into NDE's. I've looked into just about everything this site has to offer.


I hope I didn't sound crabby in my last post. I didn't feel very loquacious


I'd agree that we *all* have our biases and flaws (I definitely do) and it seems to me, based on what you're saying, that you've come to have the biases you do through research and debate, which *I* think is the way to go




Then the show Ancient Aliens came out. I liked it, but wanted to know what the counterpoints to its "evidence" was. So I started looking online and found these forums and signed up. I've always been a curious person who wants to know how things work and behave. When I was in third grade I once stood in front of a water fountain just looking at it, trying to imagine the mechanics on how it worked (not pretending it shot water up through magic, but ACTUAL mechanics).

But one thing I found while being on these forums that is plaguing most pseudo-sciences and religious beliefs is a DEEP confirmation bias. The inability to separate belief from research. I started applying it to just about everything that I've been fascinated about and found that it is everywhere. This is why I became an agnostic. It lets me still hope that these things are real, but still allows the logical part of me to dismiss most of the crazy.


So Ancient Aliens actually *did* do something worthwhile




But over the course of my tenure here on this website, I've found that it is just safer to side with accepted science for all these things. There ARE rational explanations for most of the stuff on this website, people just want to deny them (mostly because they don't fully understand the science, but that is to be expected since science isn't easy to understand).


But what's the fun in being safe?


In all seriousness, I don't find this a horrid position at all. *But,* I also think it's important to understand the boundaries of science and philosophy, because they have different spheres of expertise, and science is founded on philosophy. Sometimes scientists make philosophical statements, which I think is *fine,* but I don't think they should be treated as scientific just because a scientist says them. This is why I usually mix philosophy with whatever I'm talking about, because people usually have philosophical assumptions they haven't thought about (well, that and also it's fun!)

But I'm probably speaking to the choir.




By the by. I've learned more about evolution and other mainstream science topics thanks to debating pseudo-science types on these forums.


^ Ditto!



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

From what I've seen Wikipedia can be edited by biased individuals and many suppositions go unchallenged. At any rate, this Wikipedia article hardly gives the skeptic account credit, let alone address the blatant contradictory issues.

Josephus on the Rocks



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

From what I've seen Wikipedia can be edited by biased individuals and many suppositions go unchallenged. At any rate, this Wikipedia article hardly gives the skeptic account credit, let alone address the blatant contradictory issues.

Josephus on the Rocks


the quality of any wikipedia article can be determined according to cited sources. and you are underestimating the paid staff of wikipedia along with more scrupulous unpaid members who work together to ensure that wikipedia, while flawed, is still the best free encyclopedia on the web.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


By the by. I've learned more about evolution and other mainstream science topics thanks to debating pseudo-science types on these forums.


i would drink to that if i wasnt out of beer. oh well, monster will have to do. and thank you for such educational experiences. you and peter and a couple other well informed individuals...you know who you are. cheers!
edit on 20-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

From what I've seen Wikipedia can be edited by biased individuals and many suppositions go unchallenged.


I don't believe Wikipedia is ever edited by unbiased individuals. However, I've seen no evidence that the position that Jesus was a historical character is anything but broadly held among historians of that field (obviously, there are notable exceptions!)



At any rate, this Wikipedia article hardly gives the skeptic account credit, let alone address the blatant contradictory issues.


I think you'll find that under the article on the historicity of Jesus.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

That seems much more reasonable (to me) than saying that there is zero evidence Jesus existed


I try to be careful not to say that anymore. Though it may seem that way with the way I argue.


I hope I didn't sound crabby in my last post. I didn't feel very loquacious


Nah. It's fine.


I'd agree that we *all* have our biases and flaws (I definitely do) and it seems to me, based on what you're saying, that you've come to have the biases you do through research and debate, which *I* think is the way to go


Thank you. I'd say the same about you. We just differ on what our conclusions are. I'm a big advocate of knowing both sides of the story before making a decision. I hate saying something then looking foolish when if I find out it is wrong. I may even feel bad for misinforming someone if I told that information to someone else.



So Ancient Aliens actually *did* do something worthwhile


Lol. I still like to watch it, but now that I know what to look for I can see all the ridiculous claims. But I like riffing on things that I watch (mst3k style), so there's that too.


But what's the fun in being safe?


Touche. One never learns or experiences anything new when they always play it safe. Though, by that same account, you also have to know when to let go of a futile effort. Don't dig in when everything starts to point in the opposite direction.


In all seriousness, I don't find this a horrid position at all. *But,* I also think it's important to understand the boundaries of science and philosophy, because they have different spheres of expertise, and science is founded on philosophy. Sometimes scientists make philosophical statements, which I think is *fine,* but I don't think they should be treated as scientific just because a scientist says them. This is why I usually mix philosophy with whatever I'm talking about, because people usually have philosophical assumptions they haven't thought about (well, that and also it's fun!)

But I'm probably speaking to the choir.


Yep.
edit on 20-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




However, I've seen no evidence that the position that Jesus was a historical character is anything but broadly held among historians of that field (obviously, there are notable exceptions!)



"Historians" in what field? Biblical historians? Theologians? Vatican funded archaeologists? There is no evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, period. He may have existed in obscurity. But any opinion as to his actual existence is based on anecdotal evidence that we have from later. If there was concrete evidence of an historical Jesus there would be no debate.






edit on 20-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Tangerine


Depending on what it is, archeological evidence is contemporaneous documentation. Egyptian hieroglyphics, for example, are contemporaneous documentation (assuming they can be dated to a specific time).


Bingo! But, except for hieroglyphics, I doubt we'd be able to interpret much of it *unless* we relied on non-contemporaneous historical records. Make sense?
edit on 20-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because:



Interpreting something that is contemporaneous by using non-contemporaneous documentation to decode it is different from relying only on something non-contemporaneous. Very different indeed.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The only people who don't think it is fiction are Christians. There may be some real events, places, or people in it; but it is still fiction. Have you not heard of the historical fiction genre before?


Yeah, this isn't true. There are a bunch of theories. Obviously historical fiction (which I don't think was a genre at the time) is a possibility, but there's also the possibility that the gospels are accurate accounts of what the authors *thought* they saw.

It's pretty obvious that the gospels are *presented* as historical accounts





But the authors didn't see Jesus living nor being crucified nor rising from the dead because the authors, themselves, didn't live when Jesus allegedly lived. The exception is Paul who never even claimed to have witnessed Jesus living. Setting a "story" in a real location is a very old technique as well as a modern technique. It in no way means the story reflects accurate events or persons.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Well my whole point was that the issue of whether or not Jesus existed isn't settled and that the extra-biblical sources are all still hotly debated.


And my point is that they aren't. It's my understanding that the two sources I mentioned are, by and large, considered by historians solid evidence that Jesus existed, which is *why* there's not a huge debate raging except on the fringes (like rationalwiki and conservapedia.)



That's why my position on the subject is undetermined. If you want to believe he existed, that's fine. With so little information and sources it's easy to draw either conclusion. So when I talk about Jesus, I like to put the caveat "if he existed" near it. I'm by no means saying he didn't exist. Just that I don't know.


Right. But I don't think it's worth doubting, any more than it is worth doubting that Hannibal crossed the Alps. If you confine yourself to what you *know* without a doubt to be true, you should be a solipsist.



Though if he did exist, all the claims in the bible of him doing miracles or raising from the dead, I can say that THAT is all fake. If there is any truth to those claims, it's probably due to superstitious people retelling a story many times before writing it down so much so that the original idea got warped to the extreme (telephone game).


Or, it might have actually happened.
It's easy to sit back and scoff at the supernatural from our Western fantasyland (forgive me, I'm presuming you're a Westerner because you use English and have "Maryland" as your location, but that might be a poor assumption) but the hard materialist position you hold to is in the minority. Even my materialist *disposition* is a historical oddity.

As a case in point, I learned the other day that *apparently* exorcisms of demons is commonplace in Ethiopia. Or, to use another example, we have *contemporaneous evidence* of supernatural events happening in New England back around the time of the Salem Witch Trials. (I'm not talking about rolling of eyes and speaking of tongues; more like floating and such.) Now, I'm *no* fan of the Salem Witch Trials, and find them abhorrent. But at the same time, we have records of eyewitnesses testifying to supernatural events. Am I convinced? I don't really know what to think. But I can tell you that if, instead, I was reading something about, say, random local gossip instead of possessed people floating through the air, I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

Like I said, I'm not always certain what to think about such accounts. But I *am* certain that there are myriads of humans who have testified to them, and it seems incredibly arrogant to me to hand-wave them aside because they don't fit one's paradigm.


Clearly, you want to believe that Jesus lived. Why? How would it change your life if you knew for certain (an impossibility, of course) that Jesus did not live? I suspect you want to believe for religious reasons and the historicity of it is immaterial to your motivations. You could fairly ask me why I want to believe that Jesus didn't live. The answer is that I don't care because his having lived in no way proves that he's a supernatural deity. Why do I want to convince Christians that there is no historical evidence proving that he ever existed? Good question! I want Christians to realize that their beliefs are just beliefs and not facts and to adjust their behavior accordingly. My overall agenda regarding this topic is to get Christians to distinguish between belief and fact. I think it is truly dangerous to be unable to distinguish between those two things.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks, Krazysh0t. It was fun conversing with you. Cya around



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

"Historians" in what field? Biblical historians?


As far as I can tell, yes.



Theologians?


As far as I can tell, yes.




Vatican funded archaeologists?



Do we still have those? If so, then probably yes




There is no evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, period.


As I discussed with Krazysh0t, there is certainly evidence. You just don't find it persuasive.




He may have existed in obscurity. But any opinion as to his actual existence is based on anecdotal evidence that we have from later. If there was concrete evidence of an historical Jesus there would be no debate.


My friend, there is concrete evidence that the earth is round and people still argue about it. There is concrete evidence we went to the moon and people argue about it. There's not "concrete" evidence for anything in life, so relax a little!



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Clearly, you want to believe that Jesus lived. Why? How would it change your life if you knew for certain (an impossibility, of course) that Jesus did not live?


Um, well, that's impossible, so it's hard to conceive. But it would probably graduate me from a sort-of existentialist/nihilist to a full blown one




I suspect you want to believe for religious reasons and the historicity of it is immaterial to your motivations.


I suspect the same about you




My overall agenda regarding this topic is to get Christians to distinguish between belief and fact. I think it is truly dangerous to be unable to distinguish between those two things.


And yet, you have faith, definitely unprovable, possibly unfounded, that facts, as you think of them, exist. Interesting, no?

edit on 20-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because: That "/" symbol is important...



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join