Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement.

[Tonus]

If you were polite and present your provocative material gradually, you would get a few days of chatting.

But if he was polite and presented his material all at once, he'd be banned?

[Pat Mustard]

By whom?  Theologians desperate to prop up their bullshit?

Here's the passage:  You find the name "jesus" in it and point it out.

"Christus"

The oldest extant copy of thr passage originally read "Chestus" and "Chrestians". Chrestus was a common name or title in late Antiquity given to thousands of holy men and at least one king of Pontus.

[Jehanne]

"Christus"

The oldest extant copy of thr passage originally read "Chestus" and "Chrestians". Chrestus was a common name or title in late Antiquity given to thousands of holy men and at least one king of Pontus.

That may be, but there is little doubt that there was only one "Pontius Pilate," and it is clear from the context, that Tacitus was referring to Jesus.  I am not aware of any scholar who is on the faculty of a University anywhere in the World who disagrees with Tacitus' clear reference to Jesus.

[Pat Mustard]

The oldest extant copy of thr passage originally read "Chestus" and "Chrestians". Chrestus was a common name or title in late Antiquity given to thousands of holy men and at least one king of Pontus.

That may be, but there is little doubt that there was only one "Pontius Pilate," and it is clear from the context, that Tacitus was referring to Jesus.  I am not aware of any scholar who is on the faculty of a University anywhere in the World who disagrees with Tacitus' clear reference to Jesus.

How is it clear from context? Tacitus gave no contxt to describe the group. And given that the original person was Chrestus it could point to any number of religious cults.

At best all the passage does is give confirmation that at the time that Tacitus was writing (remember he was very partisan against the Julio-Claudians as a Republican, so imputing that Nero went apeshit against a group over Rome burning, for which we've no contemporary records of happening would be a good way of blemishing an enemy) christianity was an active cult in Rome, large enough to be noted. Me I think it is far more likely that all the passage means is that some christian scholar doctored it in order to give the Roman diocese an undeserved authority when Rome was battling Constantinople for primacy after the Eastern patriarchates fell to the Arabs.

[Drich]

Your's like most of those who believe as you do, is a failure in basic comprehension and logic. You have an hold on to a fantasy version of things and will not allow yourself to experience anything you do not already think you know.

Doesn't look anyone is going to debate me formally, but since I worked hard on it, I am going to post my debate opener here:
Let me start-off this debate by saying that I do not believe in alien abductions.

Here you should have started out with some sort of definition as to what you mean by alien abductions. This could mean anything from something you'd see on tv or the movies to someone from mexico here illegally stalking and kidnapping some chick on a hiking trail. (which did happen recently)

The definition is important because you next paragraph has you leaning to the x-files definition without any definitive parameters. It's like you assume everyone should be on your page without time or any thought.. If they are.. That in of itself can be scarry.

May I point out for the first time. there is alot a room in the defination between an illegal mexican kidnapping someone and what you'd see on the x-files. And those are just two popular book ends to your term, I could even give a more broad definition.
 

Of course, proponents of ET/UFOs will chide me saying, "Look at the many thousands of testimonials, both individually and collectively, from individuals who have been alien abductees!  It is known who these people are, where they live and their contact information.  Why not believe their testimonials?"  As I describe below, these believers/advocates have quite of bit of diverse documentation to offer in the way of accepting their beliefs.

This makes you either closed minded or unable to process information legit or not to discern anything you think you don't already know.

I have to ask myself how many testimonials would be sufficient to convince me that aliens were, indeed, among us? 

Again, there is a mjore broad definition between an alien and an x-files alien. This lends to your specific perception of what an alien is.

For example NASA found 'alien fossils' in a meteorite.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-07/na...te/1969084
Granted this is not an full on xfiles alien, (Not your pictured alien) But by all rights of the definitions and of legitimate scientific fact we do have an fossil of an alien life form on earth. This legitimately opens the door to more sophisticated life forms. Now whether or not alien life follows the pattern of an alien abductor or not is another matter. Put that aside for a moment.

Your objective, your take away from here is that according to NASA and the scientific proof it has found here, and on material from Mars, alien life is indeed found in fossil form. Which means you kinda do have to believe in alien life, even if it is not your knee jerk defination... Or your take way here is to acknowledge you have a closed mind to any information you do not currently believe.

Again all of this is a matter of perception that surrounds the term alien, life and abduction. Put down what you think you personally know and observe and make a judgement on what science has discovered. If you can make room to broaden your definition of alien life to include what has been discovered and to acknowledge it is not what you were specifically talking about, then proceed with this discussion. IF not and you can only consider the term "Alien life, and or abduction" to only mean something you'd see on TV, then know the rest of this discussion is not meant for you.

I have not been abducted, not yet at least, but if I was, would that be enough to convince me?  The answer is both obvious and affirmative, but such would take a lot more than some waking dream where I found myself lying in my own bed.

Again, there are miles between what hollywood says an abduction typically is, and what could be.
All of it having to do with your perception/what you have trained yourself to be considered to be an abduction.

Did you look at the fossil Nasa found?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-07/na...te/1969084

What if this thing was a just cold virus or some form of bacteria? and it simply made you sick for a week or two?

Wouldn't that technically be an abduction (Alien life form taking control of your body)? What if put you in bed for three weeks in a lucid dream state? (wouldn't that litteraly countermand what you said an alien abduction couldn't be?)

Again the point is not where or not this fossil or remnant of a living thing could do anything or not. The whole point of everything I am talking about is your perception.

The reason most of you fail when it comes to God is because like with your x-files alien abduction, you have only trained yourself to acknowledgment one type of alien or one or maybe two abduction senerios which usually has you violated in some form or fashion.

The Same goes with God. You all usally dream up something based on the R/C version of an all everything, father figure and then look for flaws in the version of God YOU CREATED by looking for inconsistencies in of all placed the bible.

Never once considering your version of God is in itself the problem. That it is not actually based in the one thing we have to define God... Which is why subsequently why you al always find contradictions.

At best all any of you can do is determine whether or not your version of God is or is not right. Big shocker.. You all almost always get it wrong. You are looking for the x-files alien to probe your b-holes, rather than looking for what God has offered instead.

It is no denying that there are at least several thousand individuals are alive right now who claim to have been abducted by aliens.  Some, supposedly, have even passed lie detector tests, hypnoses, etc.  Little doubt exists as to the sincerity of these individuals and their claims.  In addition to their testimonies, other claims about radar targets moving at 90-degree angles faster than Mach 3 and strange physical artifacts in the ground that could only be produced by very high energy sources in obscure areas are the tip of the iceberg in terms of the "evidence" produced by the UFO-ologists.  They have photographs, physical objects and live testimonials on tape to buster their claims that humanity is not alone in the Universe; we are being watched and the "watchers" are very close by!

In spite of all of this so-called "evidence," I do not believe that extraterrestrial aliens have visited our World.  It is an extraordinary claim, and as we all know, such claims demand "extraordinary evidence".  Some (such as William Craig) would deny this all-import heuristic, and instead insist that some claims should simply be accepted on the weight of the evidence alone, whether they are "extraordinary" or otherwise.  But if we dispense with the high bar of evidence, the authenticity of UFOs and their extra-worldliness are just one such extraordinary claim that we must be forced to accept; there are, of course, countless others.  Without such a high bar of proof, it would mean accepting every claim made by nearly everyone, no matter how ludicrous and absurd.  The Buddha, it is believed by some, was not born naturally, but simply walked out of his mother's womb, turning towards her while proclaiming new, religious truths.  Do you accept that?

Then why not look for what has been offered? Rather than some obscure version of 'proof?'

The claim that Jesus died from a Roman execution, that of crucifixion, is nearly universally accepted by modern, secular scholars, especially, Roman classical ones.  What happened to Jesus' corpse, and especially, his followers in Jerusalem in the weeks and months after his death, is, however, a matter of great dispute.  His crucifixion was a public event, but all of his so-called postmortem appearances were private. 

No they weren't.
here is a list, and in an example provided by 1cor 15 Jesus appeared to a large crowd of 500+ people. The gospels only mention personal appearances to cement specific people's roles in the church. but other books speak of more general appearances.
http://blog.adw.org/2012/04/the-resurrec...-arranged/

In spite of all of these encounters with the "Risen Savior," the tradition that "some doubted" was a firm enough one that the Gospel writers could not have ignored it, kind of like the tradition that Jesus said that he would be returning "within your lifetime" and that the "whole World" would see him. 

How is this any different of those who met him before the resurrection?
The Pharisees saw Him before His death and doubted who He was because they too were "looking for an x-files alien."

Everyone who knew him knew that he said that, just as everyone knew that some disciples of his had "doubts" about his post-resurrection appearances.  It takes little imagination to see how stories arose as to how those "doubting disciples" would come around to believing that Jesus truly rose from the dead.

Now ask yourself what Christ did for those who doubted?

But, how could one ever doubt in the first place?!  If Jesus truly rose from dead, corporeally, then there should have been absolutely NO doubt whatsoever about that fact by anyone who "saw" him!  But, if it was one of those "did you see it?" or "so and so said that so and so saw it," then, yes, plenty of doubt should exist, at least in our rationalistic day, to say nothing of the credulous first-century illiterate, unscientific Palestinian!  For one of them, especially, a religious follower, to doubt any claim made by their religion is almost "miraculous" in and of itself!  And, to be sure, there were many such miraculous claims floating about in 1st-century Palestine; Jesus, after all, was not the only "savior" who was on the scene during that time, nor was he the only miracle-worker.

Why not?
What marry/mom saw was different than what the disciples saw which was different that what Paul saw which was different than what Thomas saw.

Before Jesus Ascended His mom was given a view of Him which resembled a being of almost pure light. Some descriptions include the wearing of superbright cloths. The deciples saw Jesus as He was to them, Thomas needed to see a wrecked and injured Jesus that is what He saw. Paul need to see God and all might God is who stood before Him.

God even now offers just what we need to see to start and maintain our faith. There is doubt because unless you've seen Christ/know what to look for. You will not understand what you are seeing. Why because what you are looking for is a butt probing alien, then you will see Who Jesus is (not your butt probing alien) then you will have doubt because that is what you are wanting to see.. This is EXACTLY what caused doubt with the pharisees In that even when they knew Jesus to be alive and SAW ALL that He did, He is not/Was Not the version of God you/they are expecting.

Much ado has been made over the fact of the so-called "parallels" between the life of Jesus and other figures from his time and before, both real persons and mythical ones, who, supposedly, like Jesus, turned water into wine, cured illnesses and blindness, walked on water, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  To say that these other stories, myths, legends, etc., had an impact on the stories of Jesus is, in my opinion, to miss the point of it all entirely.  These other myths, legends, stories, etc., simply speak to the incredible credulity of the day.  Most individuals, especially those who were illiterate, believed (unlike the Roman and/or Greek educated) that the Earth was flat, and that the atmosphere above them was full of spirits and demons with the celestial heavens above that, which is where God and the angels were.

If you were honest and took the time, you'd note one of two things... One the religion itself is not older than Christianity, or two the narritive/That religion's oldest text/holy book is not older than Christianity. Meaning it could have simply been stolen.

But, yet, in spite of that overwhelming credulity of the masses, some doubted!  And, while some doubted, the Romans took no notice, none whatsoever!!  A couple of passages from Josephus, out of his multi-volume tome, contained so few mentions of Jesus that the early Christian scribes thought it necessary to commit plagiarism, and embellish a line from Josephus, making it say something that it did not say, and in the process, they were caught red-handed!  Clearly, they understood the contradiction that faces us now, that the Gospels, in telling the highly detailed story of Jesus, his life, many miracles, execution and Resurrection from the dead, were not a sufficient witness of Jesus!  After all, if the events in the Gospels really took place, how could a methodical historian, such as Josephus, not know about them?!!

How can you say the Romans took no notice? Even if we had 90% of everything rome recorded in that time you still could not say Rome took no notice. Rather we have less than estimated 10% of what rome recorded and Everything Rome did record about Jesus in any detail has been classified a religious text. which means it is disqualified as a secular text.

Tacitus seems not to know, either, although, being an educated member of the Roman aristocracy and a methodical historian, like Josephus, Tacitus had almost certainly heard, if not read, some of the Gospels, and he seems completely unimpressed by them, also.  For Tacitus, the Gospels were like the tabloids of our day, "Been there, seen it".  Even though he knew about them and their contents, Tacitus wrote the Gospels off; he knew that they were one of a multitude of "urban legends" that were prevalent throughout the Empire of his day, and he, as an historian, was unimpressed with them.  He simply noted that Jesus had existed and had been executed by a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.  Implicit in his silence, Tacitus knew who Jesus was, a religious loon who had been put to death by the Roman authorities, one of many, in fact.

Wow, what a dishonest appraisal...

The tradition that "some doubted" is an inescapable part of first-century Christian history.  Unlike the alien abductees of our day, we know so little about the historical Jesus and his followers, even Paul.  But in Paul's case, however, we know that he was sick; he said that himself.  We also know that he had a very intense experience which bears all of the similarities to a temporal lobe epileptic seizure, and we know from modern psychology and psychiatry that such experiences are often life-changing, and individuals who have such experiences often claim to have seen God and/or to have had encounters with the Divine.  Perhaps these were the types of individuals who were attracted to Jesus, the sick, the illiterate and the mentally ill?

But, in spite of all that first-hand testimonial evidence about Jesus' miracles and resurrection from the dead, "some doubted".  More importantly, however, some did not doubt, and for them, they knew that Jesus was nothing more than a religious loon, and a criminal, whom the Romans executed by crucifixion.

[/quote]

Here's the thing sport...

Christianity is not about testimonials. Christianity is meant to be hands on. Yes the vast majority including myself have testimonials, but they are not meant to win other people over. Like Thomas who put his hands into the wounds of Jesus, God is willing to do whatever it takes to help you solidify your faith and help you to maintain it. That is what a testimonial is to a Christian.. a "Look at what God did for me to win me over." EVERYONE has access to God. Again it is not about what God has done, it is what God is willing to do if you simply yield the way he asks you to.

That is the difference between your x-files alien and the alien parasite or rather between your messed up theology and what God is activly doing and offering to each and every one of us.

[Minimalist]

"Christus" does not equal "Jesus."

Roman writers heard of christos long before the jesus story was invented.

And there is archaeological evidence of Chrestus in Rome itself in 37AD.

Both Christus and Chrestus were Greek words, not Latin.

The fact that Tacitus says that he ("Christus") was executed by Pontius Pilate is proof-positive that he was referring to Jesus.

Bullshit.  You don't know when "jesus" was written into the story.  Pliny and Suetonius never heard of any "jesus" either.  C 160 AD a Roman satirist named Lucian of Samosata wrote:

"These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/lucian.html

Even Lucian had never heard of anyone named "jesus."  That had to wait for Celsus c 180.

You really need to dismiss the bullshit story put forward by the early church and start thinking for yourself.

[Jehanne]

Your's like most of those who believe as you do, is a failure in basic comprehension and logic. You have an hold on to a fantasy version of things and will not allow yourself to experience anything you do not already think you know.

If you want to debate me, then contact the mods (Mike) and they'll get it scheduled.  I am not going to debate you in this thread.

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Your's like most of those who believe as you do, is a failure in basic comprehension and logic. You have an hold on to a fantasy version of things and will not allow yourself to experience anything you do not already think you know.

If you want to debate me, then contact the mods (Mike) and they'll get it scheduled.  I am not going to debate you  in this thread.

Jehanne,

Drich will not debate you upon your topic in question, but only RUN like other pseudo-christians did with me, named Yahweh's Child, Phillip 2, et al.

When push comes to shove, pseudo-christians like Drich run away as fast as they can to save embarrassment to themselves and their primitive faith.
Just watch, he will remain silent to debate you, or will come up with some lame excuse, as Jesus watches him run from debate. (Hebrews 4:13)

You should differentiate between the BIBLE JESUS from just the name of a Jesus character.  Many pseudo-christians, like I am sure Drich does,
deceivingly try to show a Jesus character existed in lore to prove their comical myth. Whereas, they're against the proverbial wall to
try and prove a BIBLE JESUS, as either Yahweh god incarnate, or the son of Yahweh, existed in the first place. Don't give them any slack!  LOL



.



.

[Drich]

Meh..

formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.

Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.

You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.

[Jehanne]

Meh..

formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.

Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.

You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.

This is just nonsense.  What do you think that the entire legal system of the Western World is about?  It is an adversarial relationship where one litigant debates another nearly always in writing which is overseen by a referee (that is, a judge).  Lawyers, by the way, do not spend most of their time in court; they are at their desks working on legal documents and/or doing legal research (which is usually gets dumped on the paras.)