Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-15-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That is insufficient to prove that there is 'no doubt'.

There is no doubt that one must use and need sources of antiquity to support their opinion of the historicity of Jesus or the credibility of the Gospels

I have found sources of antiquity that lead me to the opinion that there is no doubt that Jesus was just a backdated story of a mythical entity conceived by the Holy Ghost of God, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds and intended to be believed as historical facts.

I know what your opinion is. What I don't know is whether you can use your sources to prove that JoeWallack's view (see the thread I linked to) is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

An assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt.

People can claim they doubt the earth is fundamentally spherical and revolves around the Sun, or that Elvis Presley is dead.

You may have doubts. I do not.

If an assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt, then I don't know what you think 'doubt' means.

spin · 09-15-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You may have doubts. I do not.

Shit that's frightening. The one certain thing the infidel has is doubt.

spin

Ktotwf · 09-15-2009, 01:26 PM

He who knows most doubts most.

aa5874 · 09-15-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no doubt that one must use and need sources of antiquity to support their opinion of the historicity of Jesus or the credibility of the Gospels

I have found sources of antiquity that lead me to the opinion that there is no doubt that Jesus was just a backdated story of a mythical entity conceived by the Holy Ghost of God, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds and intended to be believed as historical facts.

I know what your opinion is. What I don't know is whether you can use your sources to prove that JoeWallack's view (see the thread I linked to) is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

An assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt.

People can claim they doubt the earth is fundamentally spherical and revolves around the Sun, or that Elvis Presley is dead.

You may have doubts. I do not.

If an assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt, then I don't know what you think 'doubt' means.

You must first understand what an "assertion" is.

aa5874 · 09-15-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You may have doubts. I do not.

Shit that's frightening. The one certain thing the infidel has is doubt.

spin

I think you are referring to agnostics. Not all infidels are agnostics.

As far as I understand agnostics doubt the existence and also doubt the non-existence of Jesus, in essence, they doubt both the MJ and HJ position and cannot tell whether the Gospels were written as historical or not.

I have no doubt that the Gospels were written as historical or to be believed as historical.

This is the preface to De prinicipiis

Quote:

4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

.......... That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— "For by Him were all things made"

— He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

See http://www.newadvent.org

I seriously doubt that the Gospels were written as theology only.

show_no_mercy · 09-15-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I seriously doubt that the Gospels were written as theology only.

Since we don't know who the authors of the gospels were, I can't see how this conclusion follows. Quoting Origen doesn't really help much since he didn't write any of the gospels.

aa5874 · 09-15-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I seriously doubt that the Gospels were written as theology only.

Since we don't know who the authors of the gospels were, I can't see how this conclusion follows. Quoting Origen doesn't really help much since he didn't write any of the gospels.

So who must I quote? People must base their opinion on extant sources of antiquity or we might as well shut down the boards.

Are you implying that no-one can quote Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny the younger to form an opinion on the historicity of Jesus?

I can use any source of antiquity, just like any scholar, to support my position that the Gospels were written as historical or to be believed as historical.

I will now quote the preface of "Against Heresies"

Quote:

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, “minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,” and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.....

See http:earlychristianwritings.com

It is clear that the Church writers claimed that the writings of the NT were intended to be historical or to be believed as historical.

J-D · 09-15-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I know what your opinion is. What I don't know is whether you can use your sources to prove that JoeWallack's view (see the thread I linked to) is wrong.If an assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt, then I don't know what you think 'doubt' means.

You must first understand what an "assertion" is.

I think I do, but I don't know whether what you think it means is the same as what I think it means.

J-D · 09-15-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Since we don't know who the authors of the gospels were, I can't see how this conclusion follows. Quoting Origen doesn't really help much since he didn't write any of the gospels.

So who must I quote? People must base their opinion on extant sources of antiquity or we might as well shut down the boards.

That's not in the forum rules.

Doug Shaver · 09-16-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So who must I quote?

Any source that is credible, but you have to prove their credibility first. The mere fact that they agree with you doesn't mean squat.

View Poll Results: Do you think the statements the Gospels make about Jesus are historically accurate?
All of them are historically accurate.	4	6.25%
Some of them are historically accurate and some of them are not.	23	35.94%
None of them are historically accurate.	37	57.81%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2009, 01:26 PM	#53
Ktotwf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,936	He who knows most doubts most.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.