(May 18, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote: First you have to demonstrate that the JC character is a part of history. And thank you for the implied arrogance; I've never had that before.

How is a love of history arrogance?

Also finding proof is one of the joys of history.

But to be honest, I actually care more about finding the historical evidence for the ancient societies that were wiped from the record and only exist in myths from ancient religions.

In this case implied arrogance = "Well some of us enjoy history", implying that one of the persons in the exchange is not an advocate of the subject. If such implication was not present nor intended, I apologise. Either way, the reference to history with regard to JC is something of a non-sequitur.

As for actual historical evidence for the JC character, knock yourself out. If you find any, you'd be the first.

(May 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In this case implied arrogance = "Well some of us enjoy history", implying that one of the persons in the exchange is not an advocate of the subject. If such implication was not present nor intended, I apologise. Either way, the reference to history with regard to JC is something of a non-sequitur.

As for actual historical evidence for the JC character, knock yourself out. If you find any, you'd be the first.

I'd probably doubt it if I did anyway...referring to the James Ossuary.

Indeed. Which raises the interesting question: if there was any evidence for the character's existence, never mind his godman status, why the drive to invent some?

Quote:why the drive to invent some?

The embarrassment that there isn't any.

(May 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:why the drive to invent some?

The embarrassment that there isn't any.

Is that why I have seen some unbelievers make up Jesus myths?

Likewise there is no concrete evidence for Jesus, they don't have it against; though an absence of proof is all that is actually needed.

I guess people on either side want to one up the other side.

Quote:they don't have it against

There is no evidence AGAINST invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in a Tiajuana bar during Mardi Gras, either. Do you want to assert that means that they exist after all?

Look up Bertram Russell's teapot argument before you go down this path.

(May 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:they don't have it against

There is no evidence AGAINST invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in a Tiajuana bar during Mardi Gras, either. Do you want to assert that means that they exist after all?

Look up Bertram Russell's teapot argument before you go down this path.

Well if there is no evidence against, then there is no reason for some (emphasis on some) atheists to make up evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ. When they do so, it gives Christians the benefit of the doubt.

I make up no evidence at all.

I merely point out that no one in the early first century AD seems to have taken the slightest notice of your boy and I find that odd.

Someone coming back from the fucking dead would have been BIG NEWS.

(May 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I make up no evidence at all.

I merely point out that no one in the early first century AD seems to have taken the slightest notice of your boy and I find that odd.

Someone coming back from the fucking dead would have been BIG NEWS.

Nah, it was nothing special back then. Happened all the time.