(November 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh boy... guys... let's just let him have one tiny piece of the chicken.
OK, Majesty, I agree it is possible that there was a person, let's call him Jesus, who existed and was a sort of spiritual leader.

I also believe that this is possible, and perhaps the argument ought to proceed with that point taken for granted, simply for sake of argument (to see where it goes).

That however, doesn't in any way alter my opinion of the argument as presented.

We can probably allow that for argument purposes, just so we can move on, but it's far from being established; which was the whole point of this thread. We mustn't lose sight of that.

(November 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 11:59 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: [Citation needed]

---

I want to know, who polled them, how large was the sample size, where it was located, exactly what questions were asked, and other such data, before I accept that claim, anyway.

Four out of five dentists prefer Trident, too ... if you ask the right dentists the right questions.

Citation needed? Check out the references in the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity...note-fox-6 in the wiki article.

And I already gave the video where agnostic Bart Ehrman confirmed this...he is an actual historian that is active in the field and has spent over 30 years in the field, running across many historians in the field over those years..and practically all of them accept Jesus as a historical figure.

It isn't as if Bart has anything to gain from this "common knowledge" in the field of history...he isn't even a Christian...but it is what it is...almost all agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

You cannot link to a study demonstrating your claim?

Color me shocked.

Linking to an unlinked wiki credit is not a citation, kid. You need to get with the program. Link to a study demonstrating your claim.

As for citing Ehrman, your sample size is too small. Lrn2Statistic, dipshit.

Yeah, well...There certainly are Christians now. And there were Christians in the second century A.D.
At some point, there must have been a big bang of Christians.
The existence of Christians does not necessarily entail the existence of the Christ.
But that is what most of these sources brought forth by HM tell us: Christians exist.
The ones that seem to provide information about the man himself also seem to have been tampered in some copying process necessary for the preservation of the text.

Even so, the historical Jesus is a possibility and it's perhaps likely.

Either that, or I just can't wait for part 2.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:13 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: As for citing Ehrman,

By the way, as much as Ehrman has become the posterboy for the historists, he is not a historian but a theologian. His doctorate is in "divinity".

As far as I'm concerned, his doctorate may as well be in voodoo magic.

But he is clearly an expert in the Bible. I'm always happy to read his research on the development of scripture and the history of Christianity. But when it comes to "refuting" the mythicists, all he seems to be able to say (paraphrased for brevity) is STOOOPID MYTHERZZZZ!

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yes, but who, said George Washington was the first president? When did they say it? On what did they rely for their knowledge? Did they state it as a fact or as merely gossip or something others believe in? Did they have a reason to lie or exaggerate. Did others also say it, or is there just one person who said George Washington was the first president?

All of those questions are irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is when you look at ANY list of Presidents with the list being in sequence order, George Washington is first. Always. So lets not pretend as if this is not the case..second, I could easily play the role of a skeptic and doubt, question, and reject any evidence that you provide..because the fact of the matter is, no one that is alive today was there. All we have is written documents, hearsay, and rumours....even if it is "contemporary", well, how do we know those contemporary accounts weren't lying?

I mean, anyone can systematically reject anything, as even Bart Erhman pointed out...the question is, "Did the events probably happen" (regarding the existence of Jesus), and the vast majority of all scholars who use the same historical methods for Jesus case as they do in the case for anyone else in history...based on the evidence and these methods which are applied to the evidence, they conclude that Jesus' existence is more plausible than not.

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Should all references to George Washington begin twenty years after his death and only refer to what a certain political party believed about him, we might wonder if he had ever lived or if he were merely a national myth.

As long as the references were from people that were actually there, then it wouldn't be a myth, now would it?

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But, in the case of George Washington, many people and many documents attest to his presidency.

Yeah but I could question all documents if I wanted to put on my skeptic hat. Just asking one simple question: How do you know that the documents are contemporary? What would you do? Point to other documents? Well, how do yo know that those are valid??

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: There are not only contemporary writings about him, but also by him, and official documents carrying his signature.

There are contemporary sources, just not in the non-Christian realm. We have four Gospels, and we have the letters of Paul. That is contemporary...but I will get in to that in the other parts.

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The references to George Washington are not only written by U.S. patriots but also by foreigners and not only by his proponents but by those few who opposed his government. And they include references to his military career, political career, children, and married life.

How do you know that those foreign sources weren't basing their narratives of George Washington on hearsay?

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now compare the cherry tree myth. The first mention of this rather odd tale in which a six year old George is naughty enough to cut down a cherry tree but truthful enough to admit it is in 1800, in a single book, published three years after the grown-up George's death by Parson Mason Weems.

Hey, I got one, too!! There is a mention of this rather odd but true tale in which a twelve year old Jesus and his parents traveling to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover, and they eventually returned home, but they were unaware that they left Jesus behind in Jerusalem. So once they found out he was missing, they searched for him, and when they did not find him they eventually went back to Jerusalem and began a frantic search for him there. They eventually found him him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking questions. His mother rebuked him and the twelve year old Jesus said "Why were you searching for me, didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?". Luke (2:41-52)

See, I have my story, too

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Biographies immediately following Weem's do not include the cherry tree. So, given the oddity of the story the vast majority of historians have dismissed it. I was all set to dismiss it too, but in looking I some more evidence.

Even the cherry tree story might be proven IF we look at who said what and when and what their sources were. Weems was both a contemporary and a friend of Washington's. Second, Weems didn't say that George chopped the tree down, he said that he barked it. We know that Weems lived near the Washingtons and had access to his friends, neighbors, and relatives. Weems says a cousin of George's told Weems the story, and yes George had nearby cousins of the appropriate age to know and tell such a story. On the other hand Weems said himself that he was writing his biography through a moral filter to educate other in morality so he might have embellished the story on accepted as true what another writer might not. Conclusion? Perhaps the cherry tree story is partially true. But it is certainly not true that Washington cut it down as so many grade school history texts have declared. http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/02/20/...tree-tale/

Notice that in partially changing my mind about the cherry tree I paid attention to who said it, what he knew, and what he actually said. Given another witness, not interested in telling George Washington as a moral tale, and I'd believe the barking story absolutely.

Now in the case of Jesus, none of your references is to a contemporary of Jesus. None of them tells you what his sources are. All of the stories are obviously second hand. Three of them merely report what Christians believed. That, is much closer to the cherry tree and a long shot from the kind of proof backing George Washington's presidency.

Well, then you are basically saying that the Christians were lying. I mean, that is what is all boils down to. So, they falsely accused a well known Roman procucator of barking the orders for the execution of a man that never actually existed?

Now, the belief of the Resurrection itself goes back to within a few months after the cross (the very least)...now, you are telling me that the Christians would have been foolish enough to accuse Pilate of ordering Jesus' execution, while Pilate was still the prefect of Roman???

Makes no sense.

Oh, and let me also point out that when I read all of the accounts, I don't buy into the whole "they were only stating what the Christians believed" thing. They stated that Pilate crucified Jesus, not that the Christians simply BELIEVED that Pilate crucified Jesus.

---

(November 25, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "If I repeat the argument from popularity enough times, it'll stop being a fallacy!"

Right, because there aren't many arguments that most atheists that are in a particular field of study will agree with me on...and this is regarding a religous figure...so yeah, I will continue to point it out.

And I am doing so without saying or implying that just because they are on my side, it is true.

So why keep repeating it endlessly.

(November 25, 2014 at 6:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If most of the historians involved in this discussion aren't christians, doesn't that give you a little hint as to the parts of the Jesus story they don't accept as true?

No.

Yes, you loon. What it tells you is that they don't accept the specific religious claims about Jesus as true; the miracles, the divinity, the resurrection, if they accepted all of that then all of the historians would be christians. There's no rational reason to have looked at the evidence, seen in there that the son of the christian god once existed and did all those things, and come out the other side without being a christian.

What it tells you is that all of those historians, since you seem desperate to argue from history, do not accept that any Jesus there happened to be was indeed as the bible details him to be. Your argument is entirely fallacious, but if we accept it as true then it justifies the first part of your claim, but disproves the claim you're ultimately trying to make.

Quote:Oh, I am not saying that because the popular vote gives Jesus' existence the nod, that therefore it is true. I am saying that guys that are actually historians, who are on both sides of the coin, all believe that Jesus' existence is most plausible based on the evidence as a whole.

Don't blame me

And as everyone else continues to tell you, your baseless assertions carry absolutely no weight with any of us. Not only have you proven yourself to be an intensely dishonest braggart of a man, but "X number of people in authority believe it, therefore it's true," without citations as to that number, or the content of the evidence that led them to that conclusion, is merely an argument from authority.

So we have no reason to trust what you've presented to us, and what you have presented is a fallacy until it's fleshed out. Business as usual for you, I guess.

Quote:I am just stating facts, my man. Facts

No, facts can be demonstrated. If you can't show it, you don't know it, and you've dodged and danced around every request for a citation, on every topic you discuss, since coming here. You've said a lot of words, but you're one of the more content-light apologists I've ever seen.

Not to mention, you just dodged what I asked, again, instead of addressing the very real issues with the position you've chosen.

Quote: How do you know that the sources are contemporary??? Going RIGHT back to what you were told, right? ROFLOL No way out of that one.

There are numerous ways to date sources that don't rely on the actual date on the script, as has been mentioned before. But more importantly, and as seems to be the norm for you, you've either missed the boat on the actual argument, or have erected a strawman. Because the issue here is that all of the references to Jesus you've produced have necessarily been second hand accounts, as none of the writers were ever alive when Jesus was. They may report what other people believed at the time, but with no indication as to who the sources that they were getting their information from were, we have no method by which to fact check them. Original writings can be traced to historical eras by many means, but none of those work on second hand accounts; they only tell us when the accounts of those accounts were written.

I know you rely almost exclusively on oversimplified strawmen and inaccurate laymen's understandings of complex fields of study, and since you're a completely dishonest ass you'll most likely be unwilling to relinquish those despicable lies in the face of a blunt correction, but are you seriously telling me that you can't see the difference between a historical source and that source's source? We have methods to date Josephus and what have you, but we've already established that those are not contemporary, in that the man they're writing about was long dead before they were even born. And so you're forced to rely upon the people they heard about Jesus from, insisting that those were contemporaries so it's fine. But we don't know who those "contemporaries" were, nor do we have any writing in their hand with which to determine their own historical setting. We only have your baseless claim that these nameless, anonymous sources were contemporary, when all that we know with any degree of certainty shows that the people actually doing the writing were not.

No doubt you'll want to get back to your strawmen now, but I've laid out my case. If you persist with what you were saying before, all you'll have demonstrated is that you don't understand, or are willfully misinterpreting, the difference between "I saw X" and "A friend of a friend saw X"

Quote:Right, because there aren't many arguments that most atheists that are in a particular field of study will agree with me on...and this is regarding a religous figure...so yeah, I will continue to point it out.

And I am doing so without saying or implying that just because they are on my side, it is true.

So, you're aware that your arguments are logically invalid, but are continuing to use them anyway? Interesting that you'll just come out and admit that as though it were okay.

Quote:all of the references to Jesus you've produced have necessarily been second hand accounts, as none of the writers were ever alive when Jesus was.

Unavoidable, Esq as there are no first-hand references. Period. The authors of the gospels never even claim to be primary sources. "Paul," even if he was not a mere construct of Marcion, only has a hallucination of the godboy. In this, even though they were consummate bullshit artists, they are more honest than fundie shitheads like h-m.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yes, but who, said George Washington was the first president? When did they say it? On what did they rely for their knowledge? Did they state it as a fact or as merely gossip or something others believe in? Did they have a reason to lie or exaggerate. Did others also say it, or is there just one person who said George Washington was the first president?

All of those questions are irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is when you look at ANY list of Presidents with the list being in sequence order, George Washington is first. Always. So lets not pretend as if this is not the case..second, I could easily play the role of a skeptic and doubt, question, and reject any evidence that you provide..because the fact of the matter is, no one that is alive today was there. All we have is written documents, hearsay, and rumours....even if it is "contemporary", well, how do we know those contemporary accounts weren't lying?

No, the questions aren't irrelevant. They are how we determine what is and isn't true about George Washington. The great number of contemporary documents makes his existence obvious.

There's no need to cease to believe in anything whatsoever to apply reason to the evidence. The documents supporting the existence of old George are consistent with each other, consistent with the time period. A conspiracy to fabricate his existence would be highly improbable give the number of conspirators required.

Quote:I mean, anyone can systematically reject anything, as even Bart Erhman pointed out...the question is, "Did the events probably happen" (regarding the existence of Jesus), and the vast majority of all scholars who use the same historical methods for Jesus case as they do in the case for anyone else in history...based on the evidence and these methods which are applied to the evidence, they conclude that Jesus' existence is more plausible than not.

emphasis mine

Nope. That's where the problem lies. It's only recently that historians, as opposed to theologians, tried to piece together the historicity of Jesus. That's when a number of people looked up and said wait a minute, there really isn't much evidence is there?

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Should all references to George Washington begin twenty years after his death and only refer to what a certain political party believed about him, we might wonder if he had ever lived or if he were merely a national myth.

As long as the references were from people that were actually there, then it wouldn't be a myth, now would it?

Well, yes and no. We do tend to distrust people who only decide to report on an event 20 years after it happened. If no one at all mentioned a president until 20 years after his death, yes I'd have to declare him myth. Why, because the president fulfills such a historically important role.

Now take Jesus. He wasn't as important in Judea as George Washington was in the U.S., but he is supposed have drawn large crowds, raised the dead, been crucified, and made enough philosophical impact to found a religion. BUT no one wrote about him for at least twenty years. Kinda hard to explain isn't it? But not quite as hard as it would be in the case of George, since fewer people were literate, there was no press, and fewer documents have survived.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But, in the case of George Washington, many people and many documents attest to his presidency.

Yeah but I could question all documents if I wanted to put on my skeptic hat. Just asking one simple question: How do you know that the documents are contemporary? What would you do? Point to other documents? Well, how do yo know that those are valid??

Putting on your skeptic hat and throwing away all common sense aren't synonymous. Yes we rely on archeology and other documents to validate the documents we rely on. Documents which do not fit either the archeology or which contradict the majority of other documents in the period are suspect.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: There are not only contemporary writings about him, but also by him, and official documents carrying his signature.

There are contemporary sources, just not in the non-Christian realm. We have four Gospels, and we have the letters of Paul. That is contemporary...but I will get in to that in the other parts.

Nope, not a single document mentioning Jesus for 20 years following his death. None. The Gospels are not contemporary. Paul is the closest we've got and his testimony is all about visions, not first hand knowledge.

If you think Paul's reference in Galatians to meeting Peter and "the Lord's brother James," is significant now is the place to discuss it. Otherwise shut up about it.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The references to George Washington are not only written by U.S. patriots but also by foreigners and not only by his proponents but by those few who opposed his government. And they include references to his military career, political career, children, and married life.

How do you know that those foreign sources weren't basing their narratives of George Washington on hearsay?

The Brits, French, and Germans all had first hand knowledge of him as they fought a little, and highly documented war with him.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now compare the cherry tree myth. The first mention of this rather odd tale in which a six year old George is naughty enough to cut down a cherry tree but truthful enough to admit it is in 1800, in a single book, published three years after the grown-up George's death by Parson Mason Weems.

Hey, I got one, too!! There is a mention of this rather odd but true tale in which a twelve year old Jesus and his parents traveling to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover, and they eventually returned home, but they were unaware that they left Jesus behind in Jerusalem. So once they found out he was missing, they searched for him, and when they did not find him they eventually went back to Jerusalem and began a frantic search for him there. They eventually found him him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking questions. His mother rebuked him and the twelve year old Jesus said "Why were you searching for me, didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?". Luke (2:41-52)

See, I have my story, too

Yes, but mine is the result of taking a look at the evidence. And I've only upgraded mine to perhaps.

(November 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

---

Biographies immediately following Weem's do not include the cherry tree. So, given the oddity of the story the vast majority of historians have dismissed it. I was all set to dismiss it too, but in looking I some more evidence.

Even the cherry tree story might be proven IF we look at who said what and when and what their sources were. Weems was both a contemporary and a friend of Washington's. Second, Weems didn't say that George chopped the tree down, he said that he barked it. We know that Weems lived near the Washingtons and had access to his friends, neighbors, and relatives. Weems says a cousin of George's told Weems the story, and yes George had nearby cousins of the appropriate age to know and tell such a story. On the other hand Weems said himself that he was writing his biography through a moral filter to educate other in morality so he might have embellished the story on accepted as true what another writer might not. Conclusion? Perhaps the cherry tree story is partially true. But it is certainly not true that Washington cut it down as so many grade school history texts have declared. http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/02/20/...tree-tale/

Notice that in partially changing my mind about the cherry tree I paid attention to who said it, what he knew, and what he actually said. Given another witness, not interested in telling George Washington as a moral tale, and I'd believe the barking story absolutely.

Now in the case of Jesus, none of your references is to a contemporary of Jesus. None of them tells you what his sources are. All of the stories are obviously second hand. Three of them merely report what Christians believed. That, is much closer to the cherry tree and a long shot from the kind of proof backing George Washington's presidency.

---

Well, then you are basically saying that the Christians were lying. I mean, that is what is all boils down to. So, they falsely accused a well known Roman procucator of barking the orders for the execution of a man that never actually existed?

Now, the belief of the Resurrection itself goes back to within a few months after the cross (the very least)...now, you are telling me that the Christians would have been foolish enough to accuse Pilate of ordering Jesus' execution, while Pilate was still the prefect of Roman???

Makes no sense.

Oh, and let me also point out that when I read all of the accounts, I don't buy into the whole "they were only stating what the Christians believed" thing. They stated that Pilate crucified Jesus, not that the Christians simply BELIEVED that Pilate crucified Jesus.

None of these Christians who believed all this stuff, including mass witnessing of a resurrected man, nor any of the Greeks or Romans in the area, wrote down a thing about it for 20 to 30 years. Sounds mythical to me. Even Joseph Smith managed to get something in writing beyond his own book.

We have no evidence whatsoever from a few months after the supposed resurrection. You'd think that would be news what with the sun going dark at his death and all. What we have is authors who don't even claim to have been there themselves