I'm not sure if your patience is to be lauded or pitied.Any evidence?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm not sure if your patience is to be lauded or pitied.Any evidence?
Any evidence?
I posted it today, to Jayhawker. He replied by posting some of his own (purported) evidence.
Do you really want me to go and look up the message number for you?
Paul's silence. The gospels, especially the synoptics. Secular silence about Jesus. Mankind's long history of hero-building and hero-worship.
Paul's silence.
The gospels, especially the synoptics.
Secular silence about Jesus.
Mankind's long history of hero-building and hero-worship.
I have read Paul's letters in English, as well as struggled through them in Greek. I have read various commentaries on Paul, taken various courses on Paul (including one that focused on just the letters of Paul), as well as read historical reconstructions of Paul. I have studied Paul in both conservative, moderate, and liberal sources. I have studied both Christian and Jewish scholars on Paul. Not to mention, I have watched a plethora of lectures and documentaries on Paul, (as well as listened to dozens of lectures on Paul).Blood, would you mind actually reading Paul's letters and then getting back to me?
You are not making a case. You are not showing any evidence, or a rational argument. In fact, I addressed all of your points, as well as your rebuttal, and pointed out that there was not a single shred of evidence in your argument. And then instead of actually giving a rebuttal to what I said, you made the ridiculous comment that I should go read Paul.I agree. It's why I've been making my case with hard evidence and rational argumentation -- all the while trying to prod others here to put aside the ad hominems and join the actual discussion.
So I'm glad that you and I agree on this matter. God truly is in His heaven.
Ah, do you mean this?
No, it's never been refuted. If it had been refuted, then I would no longer believe it to be so. Yes?Which has been explained and refuted countless times in this and other threads.
What about them?
Which has also been explained and refuted.
If this is any criteria for disregarding any historical figure that might (even loosely) fall into the category of "hero", then I suppose we'll have to discount the existence of Alexander the Great, Spartacus, Julius Caesar, Boudicca, and, for that matter, practically every historical figure we know of.
edit: so in other words, you have no evidence. Or, your definition of "evidence" as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own.
So yes, I have read Paul.
Yep. That is one of the many messages in which I provided evidence for my position. Thank you for finally locating it.
No, it's never been refuted.
If it had been refuted, then I would no longer believe it to be so. Yes?
Sigh. You're really going to make me repeat myself again and again about this?
The synoptics. Written as fiction.
Try and refute that.
If it's incorrect, why can't you or anyone else in this thread provide any evidence to refute it?
Curious question. Reveals a lot, I think.
It has neither been explained nor refuted.
If it had been, I would know.
But if you'd like to offer evidence that it has been explained and refuted, I'll be happy to examine that evidence.
Do you have any? Can you provide it?
Such a tired old argument. How many times has Blood, all on his own, dragged it out and waved it wanly about. Yikes.
Let's investigate the nature of knowledge.
Whatever that word 'discount' means to you,
let's study it.
We can examine the error of embracing certainty about any truth at all, much less ancient historical truth.
Did Alexander really cut the Gordian Knot? Did he even see it? Did it even exist? Did Alex really burn the Persian Temple? Was it because he was drunk or just in a bad mood?
In other words, what do you know about Alexander, and what do you 'discount'?
If you 'discount' Alexander altogether, it's certainly no skin off my nose. I may disagree with you, but I sure wouldn't become hostile with you for holding such an opinion. Why would I? What does it hurt me if Alexander didn't really exist?
I'm reminded of the Young Earth Creationists.
"Where is your evidence?" the YECer exclaims.
"Well, there's the whale's pelvis," I answer. "Why would a whale have a pelvis except that its ancestors were once land-dwellers?"
"Ha!" the YECer shouts. "See what I mean! You have no evidence. I knew you couldn't provide any evidence for your stupid theory."
"But I did provide evidence. Remember the whale's pelvis?"
"Oh, I see," the YECer answers. "So you have no evidence. Or your definition of 'evidence' as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own!"
So anyway, Quagmire, we can work our way through this. All you need to do is give me a precise, contained-within-quotation-marks definition of this thing which you want from me. Define 'evidence' in your own words.
I dare you. I absolutely positively dare you to attempt it. No YECer has ever taken me up on the challenge. Will you?
You say I offer no evidence.
So define 'evidence' then. If it is possible for me to provide the thing which you define, you have my promise that I will provide it in my response to your message.
So you have no idea why I asked you to go and read Paul? My point was entirely lost on you?
I don't know, Blood. I think I'm just too polite to say it more directly than that.
But here's my best try:
Imagine that we are in real life. I am an ancient but decrepit professor --
maybe even senile --
to whom you must present your dissertation. All your professors are at the table, but I am the guy you have to address and convince.
If you speak to me in an ugly way, if you spend your time insulting my senility, you will lose your degree, the respect of all those professors, and eventually your own self-respect.
Now, with that image in mind, write me a message, here in this thread, about the historical Jesus.
You have a good mind and you seem to have some knowledge about this.
Argue the issue itself, with civility. If you can do that, you could become a serious debater.
If you can't, well... go and read Paul's letter and then get back to me.
So, instead of dealing with I have already presented, you would rather instead try to make us play make believe? I'm not playing some childish game with you. I addressed your so called evidence (which was nothing more than you stating that you believe a certain way, which I am fine with. As long as you don't try to push it on others. If you have evidence to back up your belief, that's fine. But when it's based on blind faith, then I really don't feel like hearing it as if it is something I should really consider).So you have no idea why I asked you to go and read Paul? My point was entirely lost on you?
I don't know, Blood. I think I'm just too polite to say it more directly than that.
But here's my best try:
Imagine that we are in real life. I am an ancient but decrepit professor -- maybe even senile -- to whom you must present your dissertation. All your professors are at the table, but I am the guy you have to address and convince. If you speak to me in an ugly way, if you spend your time insulting my senility, you will lose your degree, the respect of all those professors, and eventually your own self-respect.
Now, with that image in mind, write me a message, here in this thread, about the historical Jesus.
You have a good mind and you seem to have some knowledge about this. Argue the issue itself, with civility. If you can do that, you could become a serious debater.
If you can't, well... go and read Paul's letter and then get back to me.
So, instead of dealing with I have already presented, you would rather instead try to make us play make believe? I'm not playing some childish game with you.
I came here to discuss the (non)historical Jesus. Since that seems impossible at the moment, I won't be continuing with the attempt now -- not unless a debater steps forward who would like to actually address the issue with me.
That his is an unevidenced fringe position concerns him not in the least. He has (and seeks to propagate) the delusion of having already won the day and arrogantly assumes that none of us are smart enough to have noticed.If you have evidence to back up your belief, that's fine.
That or there is an understandable aversion to ... :banghead3Everyone's afraid of you, AmbiguousGuy.
I came here to discuss the (non)historical Jesus. Since that seems impossible at the moment, I won't be continuing with the attempt now -- not unless a debater steps forward who would like to actually address the issue with me.
Everyone's afraid of you, AmbiguousGuy.
Yeah, I just wish they wouldn't hate me for it.
But we always hate what we fear. I guess it's just part of the deal.
Pity me, Angellous.
Yeah, I just wish they wouldn't hate me for it.
But we always hate what we fear. I guess it's just part of the deal.
Pity me, ...