Solo

Put it down to identity crisis. But I sympathize; I often wondered how tough it must be for a compulsive transvestite to stay in the closet.

Jiri

Solo

You would do yourself great favour if you looked into the uses and limits of "papal infallibility". You are running scared because you do not care to inform yourself.

Jiri

Chris Weimer

How many times do we go over this, spin? Where's the evidence for The Egyptian? And what do you think the gospels were? Just because you have a personal bias against the gospels doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

Sometime around the beginning of the second century CE.

Most liklely something Greek.

Anonymous.

We can play these games all day long, spin, but it has no bearing on the present question.

Sometimes, spin, you go where the evidence takes you. There's overwhelming evidence that Jesus died. To me, the probability is in favor.

What's this? Contemporary evidence? Do I hear spin using some meaningless criteria again?

What's this have to do with knowing anything?

Solo

Galileo got off lightly because of three things: 1) Urban VIII. was a liberal and an old friend who admired him. (As cardinal, Barberini wrote an ode to G, entitled Adulatio Perniciosa). It is quite possible that Galileo misinterpreted the pope's tolerance, in devising his Simplicio to represent his views. It is to the pope's credit he did not interpret the Dialogue as a deliberate insult to himself. 2) Galileo recanted without much trouble, and (despite Brecht's later lies) quite voluntarily. After he professed not to have believed in Copernican theory, he received a warning (territio verbalis - verbal warning of torture, not quite territio realis, i.e. showing of the instruments), and that was enough for him to collapse and recant, 3) he was seventy and one of the household names in urban Italy. Not quite the man to burn for public relations.

Benedict was known as the ideologue behind John Paul II., and he naturally takes the opportunity of his own papacy to disseminate what to a large measure has been his theology for the last twenty years, under his own banner.

Jiri

aa5874

I have informed myself, that's why I'm scared. If you know the things that I know you would be. The Pope is a very influential figure. There are hundreds of millions of people who regard the words of the Pope to be from God.

Toto

It is not Catholic doctrine or practice to treat the words of the Pope as coming from God. The Pope has condemned divorce and birth control, but western Catholics routinely get divorced, use birth control, even have abortions.

Clivedurdle

Many don't, like Ann Widdicombe and our Education Secretary!

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

Since when was sarcasm considered a form of attack?

spin

Just once will be sufficient, if you have something substantive.

Relevance?

Good question. Got a meaningful answer?

What personal bias? Stop talking bs.

Nice equivocation, Chris.

Another equivocation.

Yet another equivocation.

What's your problem with equivocation, Chris? You're willing enough to use it.

What, Chris? I provided a few dozen things for you to see that you can't answer lots of things that drop off the edges of historical data. Tired of equivocating?

You can play games like this all day long, Chris, but I won't.

If you don't see that you often get to a point in history where you can't go beyond, where you think you are when you proceed is nowhere.

Not quite. You've just displayed a solid penchant for equivocation. Why project your problems onto me?

It's interesting that despite your proven ability above for knowing you can't give a straight answer, you seem to want to rush in here where I refuse to tread.

I have never seen you present anything that could be called "overwhelming evidence that Jesus died". Have you actually presented any evidence that Jesus died? A few hints even?

I'd think that if you were to go where the evidence took you on this subject, you wouldn't move.

About as convincing as Larsguy47 on probability.

Gosh, you didn't know that history uses evidence which comes from the period being studied?

It helps you know your limits. It helps you not to wander off without any evidence, which I think is where you are when you claim "[t]here's overwhelming evidence that Jesus died."

I've seen all the evidence you have, Chris, haven't I? If I haven't come to the same conclusion as you, when you know I'm willing to fight over issues, it just might be that I think there isn't any "overwhelming evidence that Jesus died" worthy of fighting about. Your "overwhelming evidence" is simply underwhelming to me.


spin

Chris Weimer

Your bullshit criteria you just listed nullifies the existence of otherwise accepted historical figures. Besides, you haven't shown how it's necessary.

RTFA.

Sucks, doesn't it? But hey, at least one of us isn't serious about his equivocation.

Since when did I ever claim to have all the answers? That's a game you play, spin.

I never said you can't. I think you be imagining thinks again. :huh:

Oh please, spin. Quit the crap.

Straight answer on what? Start a new thread if you want an answer on something.

You can start with Paul, then the Gospels, add a bit of Josephus, perhaps a touch of Tacitus, Pliny, and oh I don't know maybe even some Gnostics. You've got at least a 1st century citation, though disputed, but the gospels themselves attest to historicity, and you've never shown how they don't.

Funny you've been in the same rut for quite some time, isn't it? Funny how when I first looked into the question I seriously considered mythicism a possibility, even a probability, and now I don't. That's change, spin. I follow the evidence. You haven't changed your position for a while now. Point your finger all you want, but you're only looking in the mirror.

:wave: