Jehovah's myths etc.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thirdly, Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently.

How very naive. I would be happy to debate. Perhaps we could start by you explaining how you might demonstrate certainty.

 

[Super Universe]

There are many books written about Jesus (actually, more than any another individual), both canonized and apocraphical. Even if you do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God it's difficult to deny that He existed and had a tremendous impact on the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are many books written about Jesus, both canonized and apocraphical. Even if you do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God it's difficult to deny that He existed and had a tremendous impact on the world.

It is not at all difficult. Please answer my question: how might you demonstrate certainty?

 

[john63]

It is not at all difficult. Please answer my question: how might you demonstrate certainty?

Oh come on now Mr. Soule. Asking someone to demonstrate certainty is just way to cop out of a debate. Why don't you demonstrate certainty of the tenets of naturalism. You can't of course, so what's the sense in my asking you to.

 

[Super Universe]

There are more books about Jesus than any other person ever. There has been no other person who's life has been as studied as jesus.

If you deny that Jesus was a dynamic individual who once lived then by the same standard you should deny everything and believe in nothing.

But that is your choice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh come on now Mr. Soule. Asking someone to demonstrate certainty is just way to cop out of a debate. Why don't you demonstrate certainty of the tenets of naturalism. You can't of course, so what's the sense in my asking you to.

It is, in deed, hard to make sense of much of what you say, but perhaps you'll improve. The fact remains that your soulmate, Of a Happy Ending, claims that "Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently" and I'd be interested in seeing either of you substantiate that claim. What I am not interested in is some inane attempt to transfer the burden of proof.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are more books about Jesus than any other person ever. There has been no other person who's life has been as studied as jesus. If you deny that Jesus was a dynamic individual who once lived then by the same standard you should deny everything and believe in nothing.

The average pet rock could come up with a more cogent argument. There are far more books on King Arthur than on my father. Therefore?

I am neither impressed by nor interested in how many people share your silly fantasy. Provide me with evidence, not senseless babble.

 

[Super Universe]

You haven't provided any evidence that you are worth any more effort.

 

[john63]

It is, in deed, hard to make sense of much of what you say, but perhaps you'll improve.

Why don't you just come right out and call me stupid? That's how I interpret your response. This is the last time I'll respond to anything you have to say. Good luck with that condescending attitude of yours.

Did you understand that, butt clown?

 

[JerryL]

You haven't provided any evidence that you are worth any more effort.

Why don't you just come right out and call me stupid? That's how I interpret your response. This is the last time I'll respond to anything you have to say. Good luck with that condescending attitude of yours.

So, do you two have any actual support for a Yeshua Bin Yeseph of Nazereth?

 

[john63]

So, do you two have any actual support for a Yeshua Bin Yeseph of Nazereth?

Written historical records are pretty convincing to me. What kind of evidence besides that are you looking for?

 

[JerryL]

Written historical records are pretty convincing to me. What kind of evidence besides that are you looking for?

Which written historical records are you alluding to? I'm not aware of any. The closest things are the gospels, of which only one is supposedly written by a witness (John); and all are written long after the event by non-historins, as religious not historical work.

In fact, there's a distinct lack of any historical data to my knowledge. Could you point me at any non-Biblical sources?

 

[Pah]

Oh come on now Mr. Soule. Asking someone to demonstrate certainty is just way to cop out of a debate. Why don't you demonstrate certainty of the tenets of naturalism. You can't of course, so what's the sense in my asking you to.

Certainty" was the word Of a Happy Ending used. This was not a wild stab for debate - it was a question directed toward a statement of another poster, not the imagination of Duet (Jayhawker Soule). Your reaction is directed toward the wrong person and perhaps an apology is in order.

Your ire at the use of the word "certainty" certainly calls into question the bold assertion ( and shown as wrong) by Of a Happy Ending. That was essentially the same reaction I had - so thank you very much.

 

[john63]

Which written historical records are you alluding to? I'm not aware of any. The closest things are the gospels, of which only one is supposedly written by a witness (John); and all are written long after the event by non-historins, as religious not historical work.

In fact, there's a distinct lack of any historical data to my knowledge. Could you point me at any non-Biblical sources?

You know I cannot point to any non-Biblical records, so your question is designed to irritate than to seek a real answer.

Why do you feel it is not right to use the New Testement as a written historical record of Jesus? Do you accept cuneiform tablets as a written record of ancient Sumerians? Of course you do. Do you accept the writings of Plutarch as a record of what ancient Greece and Rome were like? Of course you do. You accept the writings of modern day paleontologists as an accurate account of what the earth and it's inhabitants were like many millions of years ago, yet you cannot accept the written record of the aurthors of the bible writing about events that took place mere years before. Why do you find it so easy to accept the writings of other authors but not the writings of the authors of the New Testement?

 

[john63]

Certainty" was the word Of a Happy Ending used. This was not a wild stab for debate - it was a question directed toward a statement of another poster, not the imagination of Duet (Jayhawker Soule). Your reaction is directed toward the wrong person and perhaps an apology is in order.

Your ire at the use of the word "certainty" certainly calls into question the bold assertion ( and shown as wrong) by Of a Happy Ending. That was essentially the same reaction I had - so thank you very much.

Maybe I would have apologised had he not followed it up with a personal insult to my intelligence. If he's willing to apologise for that, than I'm willing to apologise for my post.

 

[JerryL]

You know I cannot point to any non-Biblical records, so your question is designed to irritate than to seek a real answer.

Then you should not have asserted "written historical record".

You know I cannot point to any non-Biblical records, so your question is designed to irritate than to seek a real answer.

Because it's not a history. It's a repetition of myth. The only alledged author who even could have been witness was John.

Do you accept cuneiform tablets as a written record of ancient Sumerians? Of course you do. Do you accept the writings of Plutarch as a record of what ancient Greece and Rome were like? Of course you do.

I do? I wasn't aware that I believed in the flood of Gilgamesh, nor the story of Odyssius. Do you believe the four Vedas? Do you believe the Book of the Dead? Of course you don't.

You accept the writings of modern day paleontologists as an accurate account of what the earth and it's inhabitants were like many millions of years ago, yet you cannot accept the written record of the aurthors of the bible writing about events that took place mere years before.

I accept the facts present in palentology, and the palentologists ability to generally find and assert those facts.

The gospels were written decades after the supposed events. There is no signature of authorship, and there is absolutely no corroboration between the gospels and any third-party work... unlike palentology where thousands of people over hundreds of years have, with varying levels od independance, found the same data... data I can personally go look at for the most part.

Why do you find it so easy to accept the writings of other authors but not the writings of the authors of the New Testement?

It's a question which lies on a false precept (that I blindly accept other authors). They all get the same criteria for believability.

In the case of the gospels, they have several things going against them:
- They were written by people with an agenda seperate from an accurate retelling ofo history.
- They are unsigned and undated, but appear to have been written decades after the events by non-historian, non-witnesses
- They make extraordinary claims.
- Their claims, which I would expect to see supported in other texts, are unsupported.
- Their claims are generally similar to other previos claims regarding entirely different people.

In short, they have all the markings of Beowulf or Aurther. As it turns out, there may have been an Aurther, and indeed there may havebeen a Yeshua; though I've yet to see sufficient evdence to deem that likely.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

You know I cannot point to any non-Biblical records, so your question is designed to irritate than to seek a real answer.

Why do you feel it is not right to use the New Testement as a written historical record of Jesus? Do you accept cuneiform tablets as a written record of ancient Sumerians? Of course you do. Do you accept the writings of Plutarch as a record of what ancient Greece and Rome were like? Of course you do. You accept the writings of modern day paleontologists as an accurate account of what the earth and it's inhabitants were like many millions of years ago, yet you cannot accept the written record of the aurthors of the bible writing about events that took place mere years before. Why do you find it so easy to accept the writings of other authors but not the writings of the authors of the New Testement?

Your refusal, or innability as the case may be to point to extra-biblical sources belies your problem here. You want to point to the bible to prove a point. That is like arguing that Achilles existed and was impervious to injury, then backing up that statement by pointing to Homer's writings, and to no other sources.

Could I convince you of Achille's existence and supernatural powers by referring you to Homer's Illiad?

No? Why not?

When you have answered that question, then you will know why you cannot convince a rational thinker of the supernatural claims of the bible, merely by referring them to scripture.

B.

 

[john63]

I do? I wasn't aware that I believed in the flood of Gilgamesh, nor the story of Odyssius. Do you believe the four Vedas? Do you believe the Book of the Dead? Of course you don't.

That's not what I meant. Anyone who has taken world history or western heritage in college knows that historians use the written works of these authors, fictional or non, to get an idea of what it was like in their time. A work may be fictional, but it still can give clues as to what society was like back then.

And Jerry, I didn't use those particular examples for you to break them down individually, I was just making a general point. Those examples just popped into my head first. I think you know the point I was trying to make. Perhaps those examples were a bit poor.

 

[john63]

Your refusal, or innability as the case may be to point to extra-biblical sources belies your problem here. You want to point to the bible to prove a point. That is like arguing that Achilles existed and was impervious to injury, then backing up that statement by pointing to Homer's writings, and to no other sources.

Could I convince you of Achille's existence and supernatural powers by referring you to Homer's Illiad?

No? Why not?

When you have answered that question, then you will know why you cannot convince a rational thinker of the supernatural claims of the bible, merely by referring them to scripture.

B.

We're not talking about supernatural claims here. We're talking about the existence of a man named Jesus. Whether or not he was the son of God born of a virgin is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[JerryL]

That's not what I meant. Anyone who has taken world history or western heritage in college knows that historians use the written works of these authors, fictional or non, to get an idea of what it was like in their time. A work may be fictional, but it still can give clues as to what society was like back then.

Yes it can... and those clues may be true or false. There are many comic books about Spiderman. It contains real events, real places, and real people. It also has an (entirely ficticious) Spiderman.

The Bible alone is not enough to show a likelyhood of Jesus existing. The book is easily as fanciful as a spider-man comic, has no external corrooration of the claim, and is not an historical work.

And Jerry, I didn't use those particular examples for you to break them down individually, I was just making a general point. Those examples just popped into my head first. I think you know the point I was trying to make. Perhaps those examples were a bit poor.

I don't believe religious stories or fables without corroboration. I particularly don't believe ones where there are indications that they are false (similarity to other fables), or where there's an overt lack of corroboration where some would be expected.

We're not talking about supernatural claims here. We're talking about the existence of a man named Jesus. Whether or not he was the son of God born of a virgin is irrelevant to this discussion.

It would be if there were writings claiming one but not the other. There are not.