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 5)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 12

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2002 :  00:28:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Now Moakley I hope you aren't saying that it was only me that used tart language? Here's Slater for one:
quote:
A few problems
Who the F**k wrote this piece of drivel?
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
So you admit your theory has no PROOF, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------RD:

I honestly don't know if you fabricate this crap out of stupidity or deceit.
quote:
As far as the last word that will come from Jesus THE LOGOS.I hope when it(His last word) comes you will be in a more favorable dispostion towards His Existence[edited to show "Skeptics" see only what they want to see,more to come][Replies Read Last Post
Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Boron10 156 1860 12/27/2002 08:15:50
b posts/reads according to these facts this thread is hottest ticket on this cite.I wouldn't be burying it just yet f and Moakley,(ed for facts)
]

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 12/27/2002 08:25:24
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2002 :  05:02:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
"... bitches and moans", "You idiot ...", "... gullible fools ...", "... wild eyed, halfassed ...", "... empty ramblings ...", "... wackos like you ..."

All in the last two pages. Looks like this thread is coming to an end.

Thanks, to all, I've enjoyed it.

DA you may now have the last word.


Yeah. Sad, ain't it.

But it was fun following it for a while. Perhaps it'll recover.

f

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 12/26/2002 :  09:36:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Again another Irony:
quote:
Searching for the truth shouldn't mean tossing out anything that might upset your world and accepting anything that fits in.
I'm done wasting time(and space) here going back and forth with your unending demand for evidence that you cast a blind eye towards when presented with it and go on asking for it again. And while you do that you keep throwing out things unrelated to anything trying to make points that have nothing to do with anything.

Good luck in your quest for the truth. You'll need it.

@tomic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like say that when you compare the NT with documents that talk about other historic persons(Buddah,Apollonius,Zoroaster) and the NT is SUPERIOR IN EVERY WAY you still claim "The NT is not evidence!"http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm[ed.for ref's one more coming][taken from p.6 of this thread]Slater claims:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They left evidence behind that they were here. They all wrote books. They wrote to other people. People wrote to them and about them. There are public records of them. They owned things. Just like real people.
Jesus did not. Just like fictional people. But then I've said this again and again but you aren't intelligent enough to understand it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text we have for Zoroaster is from the 9th cet. AD,he lived appox.600BCThe Life of Zarathustra

Due to the invasion of Arabs, particularly Alexander of Macedonia and the destruction of the
Iranian libraries, there are no reliable sources available to indicate the time Zarathustra lived, nor there
is any detailed information about the place where he worked. Therefore, it can be said that in the past
some researchers would believe that Zarathustra has been living about six hundred to one thousand
years before the Christ. However, today some other researchers estimate the life of Zarathustra up to
four thousand years before the birth of Christ. The birth and living place of Zarathustra is not also
certain, but some historians suppose that he has been living in one of the Khorasan cities, like
Neishapour, Harat, or Balkh. It can be deduced from Gatha, the Divine Songs of Zarathustra, written
by him that since he was persecuted by some of his contemporary theologians and religious traders, he
escaped his birthplace and appealed to one of the sovereigns of his time, called King Goshtasb. The
king was impressed by Zarathustra's teachings and followed him.

Why Zarathustra Revolted against Mithra, the Belief System of his time and Promulgated his
own Philisophy?.(http://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm) ;For Budda lived appox 563BC 483BC earliest text200AD,Christmas Humphreys,Buddhism,p.155

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Life of Apollonius 5.21, Philostratus describes a visit of
the sage and his disciple Damis to the island of Rhodes in the
winter of 68/69.

With a favorable wind Apollonius made the
passage and held the following Rhodes. As he approached the statue of the
Colossus, [his disciple] Damis asked him, if he
thought anything could be greater than that; and he
replied, 'Yes, a man who loves wisdom in a sound
and innocent spirit.' (LoA 5.21)

This story cann

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 12/27/2002 08:06:01
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 12/26/2002 :  10:05:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Taken from Kirby's cite on Josephus:
quote:
John P. Meier argues: "One possible explanation of this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief -- not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians." (p. 79)

Earl Doherty counters: "Meier's argument is that the Christian Fathers would have recognized that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, or believe that he had risen from the dead. The Testimonium witnessed to Josephus' unbelief and was therefore avoided. But should the apologists have found this disconcerting in a non-Christian? They dealt with unbelief every day, faced it head on, tried to counter and even win over the opponent. Justin's major work, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, did just that. Origen, in his own confrontation with Celsus, did not shy away from criticizing Josephus for attributing the fall of Jerusalem to God's punishment on the Jews for the death of James, rather than for the death of Jesus (see below). In fact, Origen refers to the very point which Meier suggests Christian commentators shied away from, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 18.3.3 by all the apologists prior to Eusebius can be explained in this way." (pp. 209-210)

So there was some cause for the early Church Fathers [emph.mine]

What Doherty fails to mention,and its been pointed out many times before on this thread is that,these skeptics,living as close to the time of Jesus as they did,DIDN'T DENY JESUS EXISTED!!!.Therefore, it would have been meaningless to even mention it,ie [anti-Kennedy supporter]"I think President Kennedy sucked at foriegn diplomacy!I mean look he almost got us into nuclear war!"[pro Kennedy]"So how can deny Presendent Kennedy Existed?".I hope this illuminates the issue. (ed. for sp.)

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 12/27/2002 08:15:50
Go to Top of Page

Infamous
Skeptic Friend

85 Posts

Posted - 12/26/2002 :  11:17:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Infamous a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer

I agree, it seems to me that it is reasonable to think it was specifically a Jesus-based cult.
So, that, in turn, suggests a couple of things:
  1. it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a Palestinian-based, Judeo-Christian cult extant ca 175 CE and
  2. it is reasonable to presume that both the existence and peculiarities of this cult were known to his audience.
Point #1 lends credance to Pauline and Lucan references to the Jerusalem Church (assuming, of course, that they are not 4th century fabrications), while point #2 seems to limit the list of possible claimants. In fact, it would seem curious that a messianic claimant would be known to Lucian's audience but not to Josephus. OK so far?



All right...and from this we can conclude:

1. That the Judeo-Christian movement was not fabricated by Constantine. This doesn't eliminate the possibility that the movement was fabricated by someone else. However, any fabrication had to have occurred before 175 A.D.

2. That the founder of the Judeo-Christian movement (Jesus) was not a fabrication by Constantine. Why? Lucian writes: "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...". Jesus introduced the rites of the Judeo-Christian movement and was crucified, therefore he fits Lucian's description. And since Lucian writes that the Christians "worship a man to this day", we can conclude that Jesus lived earlier than 175 A.D., possibly a good deal earlier. Any fabrication concerning the existance of Jesus had to have occured before 175 A.D.

And to Darwin Alogos:

quote:
...they ended by stating "The death of Christ is one of the most documented facts of ancient history".Now if that isn't true there would have been an outcry of historians today.However, nothing but silence.Suppose they had been talking about The Pyramids and they had taken Sitchin's view and ended the program by saying "The fact that the Pyrmaids were constructed byaliens from outer space is an undisputed factof history" Don't you think there would have been an outcry? Then please think about it,why aren't historians around the world complaining about their claim about Jesus' death?
(emphasis is mine)

Your argument may seem compelling, but it's an appeal to authority and an argument ad populum. Although it's not likely, there is the possibility that all of today's historians are wrong. Their opinions, then, do not constitute evidence. You need to find evidence elsewhere, based upon solid facts.
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 12/26/2002 :  18:37:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Infamous states:
quote:
Your argument may seem compelling, but it's an appeal to authority and an argument ad populum. Although it's not likely, there is the possibility that all of today's historians are wrong. Their opinions, then, do not constitute evidence. You need to find evidence elsewhere, based upon solid facts. (emp.mine)
First,as I stated many times before I'm not just appealing to authorities and counting noses.What I am saying is that unless someone invents a time machine all we can do,to determined what actually happened in the past,is rely on what has been recorded.I've made the case throughout this thread that when you apply the same standards that you would to any other classical document to the NT it surpasses them par ecellence .Now since I'm not a Classical Scholar the need to appeal to experts is unavoidable.Secondly,while it's always true that 10,000 Frenchmen can be wrong it seems the better part of wisdom to simply ask those who denying what the consensus of scholarly opinion has to say on the subject to carry the burden of proof.
quote:
Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!


Jesus

Shattering the Christ-Myth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding

[The Jesus Myth: Skeptical Desperation] [Scholarly Consensus] [Dialogue with Trypho] [Why So Little Evidence?] [Church Fathers] [Tacitus] [Josephus] [Thallus] [Pliny the Younger] [Lucian of Samosata] [Suetonius] [Mara Bar-Serapion] [Rabbinic Writings] [Confronting Christ-Mythers]
quote:
More footnotesPosted - 02/23/2002 : 03:33:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the standard used by historians,such as:1.the biblographical;2.the internal evidence;3.the external?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can only guess that Darwin Alogos wishes to apply these standards to the New Testament. If this is the case, then, by all means, let's start applying.http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=250&whichpage=14



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 12/26/2002 19:12:53
Go to Top of Page

ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular

641 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2002 :  17:25:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ConsequentAtheist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous

All right...and from this we can conclude:

1. That the Judeo-Christian movement was not fabricated by Constantine. ...
2. That the founder of the Judeo-Christian movement (Jesus) was not a fabrication by Constantine. ...
Two points ...

First, given that I presented, not facts, but what I feel to be reasonable presumptions, "conclude" is too strong a term. Second, I have never suggested a Constantine fabrication.

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

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  00:28:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message

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?

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

PhDreamer
SFN Regular

USA
925 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  08:08:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit PhDreamer's Homepage Send PhDreamer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos

To deny ID you must refute all analogical reasoning.

Is that right? How about you demonstrate how one differentiates between something created by an omnipotent sky pixie and something created by natural processes? Big fan of irreducible complexity, are you? ID is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt "scientific" theory I can imagine, now that creation-science has all but disappeared. At least full-blown creationism has slunk back into the depths of theology.

I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith
Go to Top of Page

darwin alogos
SFN Regular

USA
532 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  08:29:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Phd complains:
quote:
Is that right? How about you demonstrate how one differentiates between something created by an omnipotent sky pixie and something created by natural processes?Big fan of irreducible complexity, are you? ID is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt "scientific" theory I can imagine, now that creation-science has all but disappeared. At least full-blown creationism has slunk back into the depths of theology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DA:To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. I think you just proved my point.Perhaps you could enlighten us to some "irreducible complex" things created by natural processes?

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 - 01/03/2003 :  09:15:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send darwin alogos a Private Message
Again concerning the second of "denials":To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boron states:Third, all of the sources you have presented have been shown to be invalid, either because they were written too late, or they were forgeries, or both.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I promise to NEVER post another thing if you SHOW me where anyone PROVED (not just stated) ANY of my "SOURCES"[or evidence] was "INVALID,EITHER BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN TOO[sic] LATE, OR THEY WERE FORGERIES,OR BOTH"[emph. mine].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/23/2002 11:11:30

It's ironic for you skeptics who deny the obvious,that you can't put up a denial on my promise to shut me up.Just like I thought all bark and no bite.

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

ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular

641 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  09:50:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ConsequentAtheist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer

ID is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt "scientific" theory I can imagine, ...
I suspect that this is more appropriate to the Creation/Evolution forum. Perhaps some coherent ID proponent would like to initiate a thread with a description of the theory?

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 - 01/03/2003 :  10:19:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Slater a Private Message
CA is right. This has nothing to do with an historic Jesus. DA you are confusing Historic Jesus with god. It's the mythic Jesus that's supposed to be a god, not the historic one.

-------
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

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13477 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  12:09:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
quote:
PhDreamer:
ID is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt "scientific" theory I can imagine, now that creation-science has all but disappeared. At least full-blown creationism has slunk back into the depths of theology.

More precisely, Creationism has evolved.....

Others are correct in pointing out that this is the wrong thread for this. Sorry. I couldn't resist.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

PhDreamer
SFN Regular

USA
925 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2003 :  13:15:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit PhDreamer's Homepage Send PhDreamer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer

ID is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt "scientific" theory I can imagine, ...
I suspect that this is more appropriate to the Creation/Evolution forum. Perhaps some coherent ID proponent would like to initiate a thread with a description of the theory?



Absolutely. I figured I was going to get busted on that but I hoped it would provoke DA into starting a new thread.

Howzaboutit, DA? Are you yet tired of defending the existence of a long-dead carpenter?

I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 12 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 0.64 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000