spamandham

You're right, and that's the proper position to take.

Toto

Are you assuming that the Bible is a reliable, truthful historical record unless shown otherwise? I think that reverses the proper burden of proof.

Solitary Man

The burden of proof stipulates that the one making the arguments bears the burden of proof. Do you have to prove that you're reliable and not fallacious (to which truthful is not the correct antonym, but logical) every time you speak? No, of course not. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that you're unreliable and fallacious.

Solitary Man

I assume neither reliability nor unreliability. Perhaps you would like to make a case for unreliability.

Yes, of course. Before we move further, perhaps you want to define unreliable, given your odd and eccentric uses of words prior.

There you go abusing words again! Do you know what systematic means?

Perhaps you'd like to actually enroll in a class. They're might fun, and the degrees you get are worth every minute of the toil.

Is English your native language? So far you've used wrongly propaganda, systematic, reliability (maybe, we'll see based on your answer) and now yours! Maybe you really ought to check out your local college or university.

Really? So if we have a document which used first-hand accounts, those accounts within the document are not evidence of the first-hand accounts? What kind of silly logic is that? Remove it one step further and you have the same problem and the same silly handwaving of sources.

So you abuse English, and now you won't clarify your obtuse language? Typical retreat: "If you don't know what I mean, then I won't tell you!"

Certainly you're not familiar with phenomenology.

You have no proof. Anyone claiming to have proof of their own existence needs a logic and philosophy class badly. What you have is evidence based on certain axiomatic principles - assumptions - about the world. Therefore you logically deduce reality based on the paradigm you're interacting with. And please, the claim of God existing and Jesus existing are two totally different questions.

That's just the point - I never claimed that. But you assumed your case must be right...because that's what you assume. No evidence. You weren't around then, so how do you know? See above for the answer.

I never said it did. But I did counter your inaccuracy in stating that is in the Bible is magic and money.

You said magic and money.

Really? So the historians and scholars who conclude that Jesus existed (with or without God, that is an entirely different question; why you're trying to conflate the two still boggles my mind) are only out for money and power? Do you have any evidence at all for these outrageous claims?

You should look at what he says and why regardless of whether he claimed it was from God or not.

"Jesus existed" is not an axiom. Let's add axiom to words you probably need to look up.

Great! I'm glad to qualify then.

Assumption, not assumtion. I won't comment on the logic of the assumption, but it is quite a stupid one. "Person thinks that Jesus existed...he must be a Christian!" I take that back--that's most certainly illogical. Dawkins thinks that there's an historical Jesus: is he a Christian, too? Do you even know what a Christian is?

Care to actually answer the question, or will you go on evading?

So you, one who has never done any university or post-graduate work in history, have the gall and audacity to scoff at my ideas I presented on history, ideas which you couldn't even characterize given the chance I just let you have, I who have done post-graduate work in history? Really now, I'm not sure I really care whether you "approve" of my ideas--this isn't communist China nor the Christian church. My "ideas" are actually very in-line with mainstream scholars, Christian, Jew, and atheist alike, and to even think that you are somehow qualified to "approve" of them is laughable at best and downright pathetic upon review.

Who cares? That wasn't part of the reason. Do you wish to move the goal-posts some more?

So you only "research" the guy who is worshiped by the people who ask for money and make laws? Great way to really get a good overview of historical studies!


What's your methodology then, bub?

Very good! What field?

You used it a couple of times--simple mistake of o for i.

I'll repeat for the simpler mind: what's your methodology, bub?

spamandham

That isn't the way scholarship works. A scholarly analysis starts with the assumption that anything out of the ordinary is false, and much of what is ordinary is also false, and let's the evidence prove otherwise. Neither modern nor ancient writings are simply accepted as reliable at face value. That reliability has to be proven, not merely assumed.

Solitary Man

In the Western World, atheism is abnormal. Does that mean that atheism has the burden of proof?

Its funny how crackpot theorists always claim that the other person bears the burden of proof.

Joan of Bark

Hey, Solitary Man, do you accept the Koran as the truth? How about the Hindu holy books? Or the Book of Mormon?

aa5874

In the Western World, the belief that Jesus was just human alone is abnormal, does that mean these believers have the burden of proof?

In the Western World, the belief that Jesus was God and man is normal, do these these believers have the burden of proof?

And, this theory appears to be true: The proof for NOTHING is NOTHING.

Crackpot theorist think that the proof for NOTHING is SOMETHING.

Now, if I cannot find anything on Jesus, it is reasonable to consider him NOTHING until I can find something.

Achilles, Apollo, Zeus, Hecules, Dionysus are all considered nothing becasuse nothing was found about them, Jesus too.

Crackpot theorists don't think Jesus should be added to the list. I wonder why.

Solitary Man

I'm not sure where I said that I accept the Bible as "truth"? Please show me where I said this. But to answer your question, I haven't done enough research on the Quran to know if there's any history in it, I have looked briefly in the various Hindu books, but haven't done any historical reconstruction on them, and frankly I've never read the Book of the Mormon. I have done plenty of work in ancient Mediterranean and ancient near eastern (predating the Quran by hundreds to thousands of years) works, religious and non, so if you'd like to use better examples, please feel free to do so.

spamandham

A burden of proof for what?

Indeed. It's also funny that those who have the least to contribute to a thread tend to be the most caustic.