(April 1, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Do you have something intelligent to add, or you going to just keep spamming the thread with stupid pictures like a stupid 4chan poster?

He thinks calling religion stupid makes him smarter.

(April 2, 2015 at 12:01 am)Nestor Wrote:

(April 1, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Do you have something intelligent to add, or you going to just keep spamming the thread with stupid pictures like a stupid 4chan poster?

He thinks calling religion stupid makes him smarter.

I don't get that, the same bias and bad reasoning affect us too. The minute you think you're better at reasoning than the religious is the second you start making the same mistakes.

I don't even know what religion has to do with it. We aren't claiming that everything said about Jeez-sus is true like miracle BS, neither are we saying the Buybull is the word of a gawd. We are making the very weak claim that it is not too unlikely that Jesus existed and died.

Watchamadoodle: Cool, so say we allow jesus be baptised by John and then crucified by poncho pilot. Would he be the only guy to have had both these events, also called jesus, in all likelihood?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested. I don't know how common both those events would have been.

The dates are so all over the place that "when" they happened isn't much of a big deal. There's a fairly big time window. I assume the baptism would generally be first, though

If the answer is yes, and we have identified a single dude, then I agree, you could call that a HJ. It does satisfy my definition. It would be about a 1% correlation with the story or something. I haven't looked in detail at how reliable it is that jesus was indeed poncho'd and john'd so I'll have to come back to those when I have the brain power.

Pizza: Personally, I don't claim that there definitely would have been contemporary accounts. I just find their total absence surprising.

Also (not aimed at pizza, general comment) surprising is the lack of support jesus gets from his "followers" in the story, there weren't very many were there? He obviously couldn't convince people of a lot even by being God right in front of their eyes. It took years of myth building and bullshit before he became popular. That's not a HJ point, just a jab at jesus for being such a fail.

(April 1, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Do you have something intelligent to add, or you going to just keep spamming the thread with stupid pictures like a stupid 4chan poster?

calm down pizza face

Nestor made a request.  I granted it.  Take your panties up out their twist.

That goes for both of you actually.

---

(April 2, 2015 at 12:01 am)Nestor Wrote: He thinks calling religion stupid makes him smarter.

See this is why atheists despise you people.  That's an ignorant remark to make.  
1.  Everyone here pokes fun at something.  Even you.  
2.  Am I not allowed to mock things I don't believe in?  Is Scientology off limits too you smug SOB?
3.  Am I smarter than you?  Yes, it's very likely.  Is it because I mocked your childish superstitions?  No, but it's a lovely non-seq
Do you have a leg to stand on in this argument?  No, you don't.  Your arguments are weak and you've been brought to school by DP, Min and myself.
You've responded with pseudo-intellectual drivel to overcome your lack of evidence for your position and pizzaface bought into it for some reason. 
 
Throw out some more insults with some big words attached to it if you'd like, but at least hold off on ignorant non-sequiturs. It just makes you look like a bit of dolt.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: See this is why atheists despise you people.

Translation:
"I'M TEH BIGGER ATHEIST TEHN YOU AWE!"

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: That's an ignorant remark to make.  

It may be sad, yes, not ignorant.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: 1. Everyone here pokes fun at something.  Even you.  

You want a cookie?

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: 2.  Am I not allowed to mock things I don't believe in?  Is Scientology off limits too you smug SOB?

Mocking beliefs is fine. Learning how to actually use logic and facts to your advantage is another issue. You need improvement at both, shithead.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: 3.  Am I smarter than you?  Yes, it's very likely.  Is it because I mocked your childish superstitions?  No, but it's a lovely non-seq

"I'M TEH BIGGER ATHEIST TEHN YOU AWE!"

Cookie?

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: Do you have a leg to stand on in this argument?  No, you don't.  Your arguments are weak and you've been brought to school by DP, Min and myself.

Yeah. Except no one takes your views seriously. Because they're not good arguments.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:37 am)Cinjin Wrote: You've responded with pseudo-intellectual drivel to overcome your lack of evidence for your position and pizzaface bought into it for some reason. 
 
Throw out some more insults with some big words attached to it if you'd like, but at least hold off on ignorant non-sequiturs. It just makes you look like a bit of dolt.

Aww, I must have really hurt your feelings. #Sorrynotsorry dumb fucker.

---

Since Cinjin has devolved this thread into nothing but a flame war, I won't be responding unless someone produces one shred of evidence that demonstrates it IMPROBABLE that Jesus was an actual person, as remember, based on the critical methods used by historians, that's all, as pizzatheist said, is being argued against.

(April 2, 2015 at 3:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Watchamadoodle: Cool, so say we allow jesus be baptised by John and then crucified by poncho pilot. Would he be the only guy to have had both these events, also called jesus, in all likelihood?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested. I don't know how common both those events would have been.

The dates are so all over the place that "when" they happened isn't much of a big deal. There's a fairly big time window. I assume the baptism would generally be first, though

If the answer is yes, and we have identified a single dude, then I agree, you could call that a HJ. It does satisfy my definition. It would be about a 1% correlation with the story or something. I haven't looked in detail at how reliable it is that jesus was indeed poncho'd and john'd so I'll have to come back to those when I have the brain power.

The baptism and crucifixion aren't sufficient IMO, but there is the implicit third requirement for a historical Jesus - the person needed to be an early leader in proto-Christianity. There is a good chance that only one early leader of Christianity was also crucified by Pontius Pilate. The Josephus reference to the stoning of James the brother of Jesus might be the smoking gun - but only if that is the same incident described in Acts. Acts was written before the Josephus reference, and Josephus would not have copied the story from Acts.

So, IMO, the historicity of Jesus depends on how many people named "James the brother of Jesus" were stoned just shortly before the Temple was destroyed. Normally I think people add the name of a father instead of the name of a brother, so that fact makes this James fairly unique.

Of course, if Josephus's reference to James is interpolated, then the evidence for a historical Jesus is a lot weaker IMO. But we still have the textual criticism of the gospels (the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, the birth in Bethlehem and Nazareth, etc.)

I'm not pretending to be an expert, but that's my opinion.

Cinjin, he is an atheist you FUCKING idiot! I'm sorry I'm rude but damn.

---

@ others
Here's a class at Yale about HJ and the method historians use. The point he makes about the difference between an account of the past and the actual past is very helpful. That HJ is a construction of historians.



 

Quote:Stop pretending like this is an uncommon feature of ancient documents.

You did not address the question.  What historical "facts" are you asserting that you can deduce from your bible?


And interpolations are unimportant if the original tale was fiction anyway.

(April 2, 2015 at 5:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Stop pretending like this is an uncommon feature of ancient documents.

You did not address the question.  What historical "facts" are you asserting that you can deduce from your bible?


And interpolations are unimportant if the original tale was fiction anyway.

Are you asking me if some biblical history is accurate? I don't really understand what you mean by "deduce from your bible"? The Bible mentions a city called Jerusalem. I can deduce that people who believed that the Torah was God's law had a temple there, and that it was probably a central location in the early history of the Christian church. There are 4 facts.

To know how to detect likely interpolations is important in determining the question of whether or not the texts have been edited and to what degree. You brought the issue up. How it affects your mythicist interpretation of the data is for you to explain.

And Gone With The Wind mentions Atlanta.  Does that make the novel factual?

You are the one asserting that there are historical facts in your precious bible.  I'm asking for a short list.  I've already given you 4 that are hogwash so the ball is in your court.