Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by pink101:

In what way?

» Brian Tubbs - Unjustifiably Smug

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:

Very smug of you, Migisi, and not at all justified.

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived. When it comes to details ABOUT his life, that's when you get into evidence that you'd consider biased.

Yet even the biased evidence tells us SOMETHING. For example, most of the ancient records of the Egyptian Pharaohs are heavily biased - holding forth in fact that the Pharoahs were gods. Historians obviously take these with a big grain of salt, BUT they still treat them as historical records. If they were to apply YOUR extreme cynicism, however, they'd completely throw out all the records, claiming there's NOTHING they can learn from them.

One of Josephus' references to Jesus, for instance, has no doubt been tampered with, but no credible historian that I'm aware of (point me to one, if you know someone) doubts that Josephus DID make reference to Jesus! In other words, Josephus probably didn't endorse Jesus as the Messiah, but he almost certainly made at least SOME kind of passing reference to him - a reference that was later altered.

And even setting that reference aside, there's the OTHER one, where Josephus talks of the "brother of Jesus" being killed.

But none of this matters to you. You are determined to believe that Jesus was a myth, and you reject all evidence that shows otherwise.

Lest you think you can throw that back at me, I have gone through periods of doubt in my life - and, quite frankly, I faced those doubts (I believe) with much more forthrightness and intellectual honesty that I've seen from some folks here.

Even if I turned away from Christianity, I would never question that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.

The fact that there WAS a Jesus of Nazareth is well accepted by mainstream historians (Christians AND non-Christians alike) and attested to by history.

Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth in the first century. That is one of the surest things we can know about ancient history.

As Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge (an ATHEIST, I believe) has written...

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.'"

» Migisi - Unjustifiably Smug

In response to Unjustifiably Smug posted by BrianTubbs:
.
One of Josephus' references to Jesus, for instance, has no doubt been tampered with...but he almost certainly made at least SOME kind of passing reference to him - a reference that was later altered.
.
He 'most certainly' made a passing reference? Interpolation means something 'added' or 'inserted'... "to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter" (Merriam Webster). The majority of bible historians concur that Josephus' reference to Jesus was 'added' (inserted) by ~~someone else~~ after Josephus' work was completed. Not that he wrote a reference to Jesus and someone changed it in some way.
.
You are determined to believe that Jesus was a myth, and you reject all evidence that shows otherwise.
.
Whether I believe Jesus existed or not is not the issue. The issue is that Christians make claims about 'evidence' that they can't back up with credible irrefutable proof. My determination was to have someone provide it. I'm not satisfied with what's been presented so far.
.
Step back from the conclusion,...
.
His conclusion tainted the whole thing for me. It's just another example of Christian arrogance. It was SO unnecessary, IMO.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Credentials

In response to Credentials posted by _Boanerges_:

.
I already told you, Wendell. See the last sentence in my post #1 in this thread.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - Credentials

In response to Credentials posted by Migisi:
yes, I did re-read your statement. However, that still does not answer my question. What will satisfy your decision that evidence will be acceptable, to you... For example, a court of law accepts 2 witness as a good indictment of truth along with the evidence - etc.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Credentials

In response to Credentials posted by _Boanerges_:

http://peace-of-mind.net/supernatural_re...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Boxing Her In

In response to Credentials posted by _Boanerges_:

.
Heh heh heh.
.
You aren't going to have much luck boxing her in, Wendell. She had been around the block many times before you were born.
.
But, it's fun watching you try.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Credentials

In response to Credentials posted by _Boanerges_:
.
I've already said that I'm pretty much done with this discussion.
.
But if you think you have something to present, maybe I'll reconsider.
.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Tainted?

In response to Unjustifiably Smug posted by Migisi:

His conclusion tainted the whole thing for me. It's just another example of Christian arrogance. It was SO unnecessary, IMO.

That's like a jury member completely disregarding all the logic and evidence presented by a prosecutor because he was "rude" or "arrogant." I'm sure it happens, but hopefully, not too much. God help our justice system to the extent that it does.

» Brian Tubbs - Unjustifiably Smug

In response to Unjustifiably Smug posted by Migisi:

Irrefutable proof, eh? Come on! That's like saying you want the next U.S. President elected unanimously. I bet George Washington couldn't get unanimously elected in this day and age. (Thankfully, though, he'd probably still win - but as the country goes further left, that is less likely).

Anyway....your standard of irrefutable proof sets pretty much any Christian in discussion with you up for failure. Because YOU will try to refute just about any piece of evidence, and refuse to accept it - no matter how sound or compelling.

If you are the judge and jury as to what is acceptable evidence and your standard is that which YOU won't "refute," then I'm afraid I have nothing more to contribute. I might as well try to convince Washington, DC to vote Republican in 2008.

But...for everyone else watching...make NO mistake...contrary to what Migisi may say...there is plenty of solid evidence for Jesus' existence in the first century. And the majority of historians (Christian and NON-Christian) concur with that.