RE: A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...
February 10, 2015 at 10:10 am
(This post was last modified: February 10, 2015 at 10:14 am by TheMessiah.)
(February 10, 2015 at 9:59 am)Cinjin Wrote:(February 10, 2015 at 9:41 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Read those books and you'll get a superb understanding of who Yeshua was and why both fundie Christians and the moronic "Jesus never existed" clowns can be given equal measures of scorn.
Key phrase here is "equal measures of scorn."
There are two schools of thought on the matter and you're equally, if not more biased than the other. You made a statement of fact and now there are those here who have scorned your view. There's nothing wrong with that ... that's what we do here, but it is you who first discounted the opinions of others and not the other way around by stating the existence of Jesus as a proven absolute. That's just blatant bias, as even I gave a little on the possibility of existence. There's a book supporting every theory and viewpoint on the planet. That doesn't mean that your particular book proves you correct. If you think it does than you should probably be a christian. They have a book that was allegedly written by the most powerful wizard in the universe. Is it absolute truth?
Pointing to others opinions who happen to share your own does not provide you with positive proof of your assertions. Everybody's gotta book bro.
To clarify, I did not make a ''statement of fact'' --- I specifically said ''Jesus most likely existed'' --- this is not an assertion, it was the probability I cited. I have no reason to be bias in this exchange. To be frank, I hate Christianity with a passion and consider myself mostly Anti-Theistic towards Christianity and Islam.
If I was bias, I would most certainly be bias towards the other way; from an Atheistic and Anti-Theistic standpoint, trying to disprove Jesus, which I have noticed has become common among Internet blogging. I did not 'discount' an other opinion, I simply made a comment and tried to not debate it because it would derail my thread; but now, I am willing to debate it on this thread.
When I cited my evidence, I did not point to The Bible. I outright discarded them; instead I cited non-Christian sources and even an anti-Christian Historian who acknowledged that Christ existed, as a man.
What I should add is that this is not an equal measure; it's not akin to ''there is 50/50 chance'' Jesus existed. The vast majority of Historians agree upon his historical existence, to ignore this, or to say it does not matter is silly. I'll debate the myth theory; my post has been outlined, but the myth theory is akin to citing outdated Scientific theories which do not hold up.
If I point to a number of Historians; who have been reliably analyzed, then this is evidence.
