Everybody's got one.fool said:
ARCHIVE: Knight and Lion from TOL are Back to Answer Your Questions
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
:up:fool said:
Who??? What's his name???allsmiles said:
OK, and when you lay down for "sleepy sleep" and then at work tomorrow see if you can come up with a name. A name of some person (any person) that you believe existed around the same time that Jesus existed. That shouldn't be too hard to do should it?allsmiles said:
Two words: "BRU" "TAL"
:chuckle:
:chuckle:
I don't know, remember allsmiles isn't sure about Augustus Caesar so who knows what he thinks about Pilate.fool said:
I guess we will have to wait and see if allsmiles can give us a name.
Seriously.Knight said:Everybody's got one.
I think we got alot of ground covered.
I didn't know that question was ancient and had much written on it before, it was my question asked my way and if it answered something for someone somewhere then it was worth the time.
As for me. my path leads where it leads, if there is a God then He stands behind me and backs me up. And if He isn't, and He dosen't, then there is no change in my course, because there is right and wrong. And right won't win unless Everyman stands up and is counted.
OK, I have no idea what that means... but hey, if that's your motto knock yourself out!fool said:
Lawless
New member
Jumping in this thread kind of late.......but like to say that it was a cool show....... I enjoyed it.
I especially like the topic of miracles cause disbelief at the end of the program......Reminded me of a phone conversation with a disbelieving friend that mocks the word of God because of the miracles in scripture. He said: " A talking snake? people lead by a cloud by day, and a fire by night? A pregnant virgin? Dead people come to life?.......lol.....Sure......." So I asked Him would He believe the scriptures if God did not work the miracles. He replied " probably not! " Then he said I would believe if " I " could see the miracles first hand........Ha! then I laughed and said " no you wouldn't believe then either! "..............
I especially like the topic of miracles cause disbelief at the end of the program......Reminded me of a phone conversation with a disbelieving friend that mocks the word of God because of the miracles in scripture. He said: " A talking snake? people lead by a cloud by day, and a fire by night? A pregnant virgin? Dead people come to life?.......lol.....Sure......." So I asked Him would He believe the scriptures if God did not work the miracles. He replied " probably not! " Then he said I would believe if " I " could see the miracles first hand........Ha! then I laughed and said " no you wouldn't believe then either! "..............
If allsmiles acknowledges someone he believes existed around the first century, we'll be able to see if he's consistent in his demand for evidence, or if his demands are much higher when it comes to Jesus. If he provides a name, next he will be asked why he believes that person existed. And whatever evidence he provides, we will be able to provide similar evidence regarding Jesus.Knight said:
For instance, it sounded like allsmiles was tentatively pointing to Wikipedia to confirm the existence of someone:
Now, who is he talking about? I don't know. I thought he might be referring to Caesar Augustus, but Wikipedia says his birthday was September 23, 63 BC. (There is a 23 in there; could allsmiles have misread it?)allsmiles said:
Anyway, lets assume that allsmiles was talking about Augustus (or anyone for that matter) and cited a Wikipedia article as evidence that this person existed. At that point we simply look up Wikipedia's article on Jesus and find:
Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a Greek-derived title meaning "Anointed One" which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah".
The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee (then part of Iudaea) who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.
The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee (then part of Iudaea) who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.
To sum up, allsmiles doesn't want to affirm belief in the existence of anyone from 2000 years ago because if he knows that if he does, he'll be asked to substantiate that belief. And if he does that, we'll apply whatever standard for evidence he establishes to Jesus. At that point if he will be left with three options:
1) Accept that Jesus existed and renounce his belief that Jesus didn't exist.
2) Decide after-the-fact that the evidence he had cited for (historical figure X) was insufficient. (At that point he'll be right back where he is now, unable to affirm his belief in the existence of anyone who lived ~2000 years ago.)
3) Openly admit his double standard and stand by it.
4) Curl up in a fetal position and suck his thumb while whimpering for "mommy."
2) Decide after-the-fact that the evidence he had cited for (historical figure X) was insufficient. (At that point he'll be right back where he is now, unable to affirm his belief in the existence of anyone who lived ~2000 years ago.)
3) Openly admit his double standard and stand by it.
4) Curl up in a fetal position and suck his thumb while whimpering for "mommy."
His pride won't likely allow for option 1. Plus he would then have a harder time dismissing the evidence that Jesus is God which is inseparable from the historical details about Christ's life, which is why the Jesus-as-myth concept is so appealing to him to begin with.
Options 2 through 3 would expose his bias beyond any doubt.
Option 4 would just make everyone uncomfortable. :granite:
As I quoted from Wikipedia's article on Jesus:
Over at the article about the wacky Jesus as myth idea:
allsmiles, since you are so eager learn why even most non-Christian historians consider the Jesus-myth folks to be on the wacko-fringe, you might want to read the "Criticism of the theory" section at the end of the article.
Granite, you may find the fifth bullet point in that section to be particularly enlightening:
As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.
Over at the article about the wacky Jesus as myth idea:
The theory is based on apparent similarities between early Christian accounts of Jesus and pre-existing mystery religions, and at the more extreme limit of the theory (that Jesus is 100% myth) is also based in part on the lack of extant evidence about his life outside the Gospels. The extreme limit of the theory has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians.
allsmiles, since you are so eager learn why even most non-Christian historians consider the Jesus-myth folks to be on the wacko-fringe, you might want to read the "Criticism of the theory" section at the end of the article.
Granite, you may find the fifth bullet point in that section to be particularly enlightening:
Proponents of the Jesus Myth disagree with the notion that the apostle Paul did speak of Jesus as a physical being. This is largely an argument from silence. Furthermore, it is slightly a distortion, because the Apostle Paul contradicts this viewpoint. He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh"[39], took "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form,"[40]. Paul also states that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."[41] and "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being."[42] Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times[43] in the Epistles. Scholars believe that the apostle Paul did not quote Jesus more often, because he took for granted that Christians knew what Jesus said. Jesus Myth proponents believe this is a weak argument from silence.
Then again, this isn't anything that hasn't been explained to you on TOL.
Knight said:What????? You must be on CRACK cocaine!
Caesar may have got a month named after Him but every single year for all of history in virtually every culture number their years after Jesus Christ.
Furthermore... you're missing the entire point!
I would never reject the existence of Caesar, that would be absolutely mind boggling stupid!!! Just as rejecting the existence of Jesus would be absolutely mind boggling stupid!!!
I guess you assume we all think "Augustus" or "Octavian" (that makes two) when you say the word "Caesar." Other people think "Julius." Now we have clarification...
Years are numbered after Christ because the church guaranteed it would happen and wrote the calendar accordingly. Political manipulation as evidence of your deity is absurd on its face. You can do better than that.
This discussion is idiotic and foolish and insulting, when you boil it right down.
Since one side won't even entertain the possibility that Doughtery is on to something and since the other side is at least informed of his argument we're pretty much at an impasse.
Knight, others: refusing to even examine the man's claims is not the attitude I expect from someone confident and self-assured in their case or argument. This is very revealing and very typical.
Since one side won't even entertain the possibility that Doughtery is on to something and since the other side is at least informed of his argument we're pretty much at an impasse.
Knight, others: refusing to even examine the man's claims is not the attitude I expect from someone confident and self-assured in their case or argument. This is very revealing and very typical.
- Status