Debate with a Christian

[LastPoet]

In a broad sense, the corrupted leaders of the roman empire. Alas, you don't really do History, do you?

[discipulus]

Unreasonable?!

Precisely.

Unreasonable.

Damn, I thought you were talking about a god, an entity capable of doing anything it wishes.

God can do anything logically possible and anything in accordance with His nature. God cannot do "anything". That is a common misconception of divine omnipotence.

Clearly, if it exists, it does not wish that existence to be acknowledged by everyone.

Then again... why would it allow people to acknowledge it under many different guises and to then make war over which guise is the correct one?...
It's odd, to me...

So, I reckon that, if such a being exists, it just simply does not wish us to acknowledge it... and all gods that have been worshiped by mankind have all been equally man-made.

The reasoning here is nothing less than horrid.

You essentially argue that since people have different views of who God is that therefore He does not want them to know He exists...



How does that follow? It seems to me to be a classic non-sequitur.

---

I think you are quietly stepping around the elephant in the room, discipulus. And that is...YOU need to prove that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was Divine, died for our sins, and resurrected from a tomb. Your only measure of doing this, is through the Bible, for that is the only place that it's ''recorded.'' I put recorded in quotes, because I believe the Bible to be a farce, and not a reliable source of proving God exists, or anything else, for that matter. So, you are going to use it as a reliable source, but the truth is ...it is your only source. Which should tell you something.

I do not need to prove Jesus existed at all. Jesus' existence is as axiomatic as that of Tiberius Caesar or any other notable figure of ancient history.

Where have you been living Deidre? The moon? Mars?


In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

[*Deidre*]

Even as a Christian, I never looked at the NT as a reliable bio of Jesus. So, I don't care for this topic.

You are wrong. And you should care. If it is shown that they are reliable then your "theory" that the early church fathers fabricated a bunch of lies is blown clear out of the water.

What "church fathers" are you referring to anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Taken from that link:
Scholars have attempted to reconstruct something of the history of the oral traditions behind the Gospels, but the results have not been too encouraging. The period of transmission is short: less than 40 years passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of Mark's Gospel. This means that there was little time for oral traditions to assume fixed form.

Good luck using the Bible to prove anything, discipulus. But, maybe you could send your findings to the 'scholars' who haven't been able to manage what you are claiming is so easy to do.

Is this the debate thread? lol

---

I do not need to prove Jesus existed at all. Jesus' existence is as axiomatic as that of Tiberius Caesar or any other notable figure of ancient history.

Please cite your sources. Or it's just hearsay. Do you know how to debate? I should have asked that several pages back before we started all this. lol

Where have you been living Deidre? The moon? Mars?

I'm sent from heaven........................

[pocaracas]

Damn, I thought you were talking about a god, an entity capable of doing anything it wishes.

God can do anything logically possible and anything in accordance with His nature. God cannot do "anything". That is a common misconception of divine omnipotence.

So... reading comprehension is lacking, huh?

Clearly, if it exists, it does not wish that existence to be acknowledged by everyone.

Then again... why would it allow people to acknowledge it under many different guises and to then make war over which guise is the correct one?...
It's odd, to me...

So, I reckon that, if such a being exists, it just simply does not wish us to acknowledge it... and all gods that have been worshiped by mankind have all been equally man-made.

The reasoning here is nothing less than horrid.

You essentially argue that since people have different views of who God is that therefore He does not want them to know He exists...



How does that follow? It seems to me to be a classic non-sequitur.

I'm sorry if I went too fast...
I'll give you some time until you understand it...
I won't stand and wait.

[discipulus]

Please cite your sources. Or it's just hearsay. Do you know how to debate? I should have asked that several pages back before we started all this. lol

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

---

God can do anything logically possible and anything in accordance with His nature. God cannot do "anything". That is a common misconception of divine omnipotence.

So... reading comprehension is lacking, huh?

The reasoning here is nothing less than horrid.

You essentially argue that since people have different views of who God is that therefore He does not want them to know He exists...



How does that follow? It seems to me to be a classic non-sequitur.

I'm sorry if I went too fast...
I'll give you some time until you understand it...
I won't stand and wait.

I understand that your argument fails. Maybe you would like to revise it?

[pocaracas]

So... reading comprehension is lacking, huh?

I'm sorry if I went too fast...
I'll give you some time until you understand it...
I won't stand and wait.

I understand that your argument fails. Maybe you would like to revise it?

The argument is not what you think it is.... I'll keep waiting...

[*Deidre*]

Please cite your sources. Or it's just hearsay. Do you know how to debate? I should have asked that several pages back before we started all this. lol

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

(see bolded) And that is what you need to cite. I'd like to see this 'abundant' evidence for Jesus existing, that isn't linked to the Bible.

[Whateverist]

Jesus H. Christ! Can't we just concede that the books Abraham, Martin and John or whatever they're called reflect the teaching of the nutcase called Jesus and get on with it? (So what if they are?)

[discipulus]

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

(see bolded) And that is what you need to cite. I'd like to see this 'abundant' evidence for Jesus existing, that isn't linked to the Bible.

Give it up Deidre. Nothing is going to cause you to change your mind. You have all of the references I gave you of scholars and biblical critics who are experts on all of this and you still ask for more.

We can dialogue when you are ready to accept Jesus existed. Until then, I wish you well.

[LastPoet]

Give it up Deidre. Nothing is going to cause you to change your mind.

Is it just me, or its ok to laugh hysterically at this?

ETA:"Giving it up" means usually to change your mind, yes?"