Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 05:37 AM

Partial post by Bumble Bee Tuna:

Quote:

You'll find that plenty of historians will professionally vouch for the existence of a Jesus of some sort.

That "Jesus of some sort" is generally referred to as (an)"historical Jesus"
by the historians themselves.

Quote:

None that I know of will professionally vouch for the existence of the miraculous Jesus spoken of in the Gospels.

True: that is
the Jesus of faith, which historians as historians must remain silent on. Same way
with Joseph Smith: whether Joseph Smith's Book
of Mormon was the product of the revelation of an
angel isn't something that historians can stake their reputations on.

The conflation of the two (the historical Jesus
and the "miraculous Jesus") has been the bane of
this thread.

Cheers!

Ron Garrett · 10-17-2002, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
[The conflation of the two (the historical Jesus
and the "miraculous Jesus") has been the bane of
this thread.

Yea, verily, yea. And not merely of this thread.

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-17-2002, 07:01 AM

I think both sides have had their say.

We have a "what-if" explanation from V that might reconcile one conflict. We have comments about how that explanation creates a compound event not contained in either account (and thus is extra-biblical), is rather stretched and silly in some points (the headlong issue and the having to believe one account isn't telling the method of death but only what later happened to the corpse), and is contrived specifically to deal with the fact the original sources conflict on their face and need explanation. Some of the other issues in the account, such as the naming of the field of blood haven't had been given an explanation and still conflict outright.

The audience can make its decision on this one and perhaps we can move to another biblical inconsistency. Afterall it's the weight of the hundreds of little inconsistencies that require such stretched explanations that stack up together until it becomes apparent the bible is not the work of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect God. Perhaps when V's mind is weighted down with hundreds of stretched "what-if" explanations he'll suddenly realize what we've been saying all along: the bible is full of errors and inconsistencies. I would think that at some point the weight of believing so many silly/stretched/extra-biblical explanations is too great for an honest person to bear.

For laughs here are two short but fun little parables that relate to this strange endeavor of apologetics V has embarked on.
<a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/house.htm" target="_blank">The Man who Bought a House</a>
<a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ship.htm" target="_blank">The Great Ship</a>

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Ion · 10-17-2002, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
...the Jesus of faith, which historians as historians must remain silent on.
...
Cheers!

So, like I wrote October 11:
there is no historical evidence of Jesus and Judas existence, and of Jesus miracles.

Judas "...one-time apostle..." status of a mythical Jesus, and "...his turning against Jesus.", are not historical facts.

Leonarde, you don't have one historical document to show otherwise.
You are waisting people's time in this thread, since October 11.

To summarize again what has been established in this thread:
Judas, if he ever existed, has two contradictory accounts of death in the Bible.
Saul, if he ever existed, has three.

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 07:39 AM

Ion:

Quote:

You are waisting people's time in this thread, since October 11.

, he said without
a whit of self-awareness or irony....

Radorth · 10-17-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

, he said without
a whit of self-awareness or irony....

Tell me about it.

It's what makes skeptic's forums irresistable to Radorth. Unfortunately he loses all self-control upon discovering blatant hypocrisy. The question is whether he is truly following Jesus' example or not.

Rad

Ion · 10-17-2002, 04:24 PM

Religious people, Leonarde and Radorth had spoken again.
Leonarde was an apologetic in hiding in between October 11 and October 16 in this thread, then he had to explain publicly how his thinking of "...1 billion believers..." fits the forum.

Still not a iota of physical evidence from them related to backing up their religious beliefs.

So, like Vanderzyden here, they have blind faith in a religion, and not reasoning skills allowing for example to see two contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Judas' and three contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Saul'.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 06:59 PM

Ion,
I'm going to let you have the last word since, as
I expected, it turned out to be a muddled one.

Cheers!
------------------------------------------------

Religious people, Leonarde and Radorth had spoken again. [had??????]

Leonarde was an apologetic[?apologetic???] in hiding[????I posted during that period several times] in between October 11 and October 16 in this thread, then he had to explain publicly how his thinking of "...1 billion believers..." fits the forum.[No, how it fits the trajectory of this thread: the question of "recognition" which you brought up]

Still not a iota of physical evidence from them related to backing up their religious beliefs.[Because we were interested in the historical Jesus and/or Judas on this thread, not expounding our religious beliefs]

So, like Vanderzyden here, they have blind faith in a religion, and not reasoning skills allowing for example to see two contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Judas' and three contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Saul'.[Must you torture the English language as you torture us with your silliness??]
-------------------------------------------------
Since I promised Ion the last word here is his:
"apologetic" [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Ion · 10-17-2002, 09:43 PM

Leonarde,
you nitpick about my English as my third language -but I double checked on what you percieve as my errors, and your perception is incorrect-, and you struggle with historical proofs about Jesus and Judas after you boasted October 11 that Judas was an apostle, but how about this post addressed to your failures in this discussion, post that you are ducking?

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:
Leonade,
You have been practicing to many apologitics.
Now read what I ACTUALLY wrote.

"Well, mabye the confusion is my fault, the only meaning of the word "recognize" that I am aware of in this context is to reconize something as fact. If I say I recognize Jesus as a historical person, I mean that I accept his existance in history as a fact."

Note the words "in this context"
I also said it was the only one "I" was aware of in this context.

Now from your answer below.

"3)The (alleged) fact that Jesus of Nazareth was/is
an historical person is a separate fact
from the other alleged fact that millions of persons recognize him as such. The latter was my focus when I inserted the remark about the 1 billion people."

I seems that I did NOT misunderstand you, you are saying that 1 billion people recognize Jesus as a historical person, meaning that they believe his story as fact.
If we agree that 1 billion people believe that it is a fact, and we agree that their belief is a seperate issue, then their belief has no bearing on the issue, and this whole thing has been a waste of time.

It shows to any reader a struggle in your way of debating, right?

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

leonarde · 10-17-2002, 10:07 PM

Ion,

1)I have lots of foreign friends and am very tolerant of shakey English in general.

2)You, however, showed no ability to understand
what I was even contending: all you saw was a label, "theist", so I was the "enemy" and so, instead of following the logic of the thread and
the line of disputation (of which I had only a small input), you wanted to sidetrack things into
what you thought our conversation should be
about.

3)The first sentence of Butters' post is also in
very bad English. He entered the thread solely to
"correct" me but merely showed repeatedly that he
doesn't understand what "wide recognition" means.
(His muddled English and yours merely ECHOED the
muddle-headedness of your posts).

4) A person is an "apologist"; what such
a person engages in is "apologetics", not "apologitics" as Butters had it (his second misspelling in his first VERY short sentence).

5)You have enough posts at II that you should be
able to distinguish by now between "the historical
Jesus" and "the Jesus of faith". The former was
mostly the subject (directly or indirectly) of these recent threads: other atheists here understand that. Why you don't is beyond me.

6)Instead you sought to conflate the two by asking for "history books" which talk about miracles. (!)

7)I'm sorry if I insulted you but it was partly
a frustration with our non-communication of several days.

Cheers!

10-17-2002, 07:01 AM	#253
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	I think both sides have had their say. We have a "what-if" explanation from V that might reconcile one conflict. We have comments about how that explanation creates a compound event not contained in either account (and thus is extra-biblical), is rather stretched and silly in some points (the headlong issue and the having to believe one account isn't telling the method of death but only what later happened to the corpse), and is contrived specifically to deal with the fact the original sources conflict on their face and need explanation. Some of the other issues in the account, such as the naming of the field of blood haven't had been given an explanation and still conflict outright. The audience can make its decision on this one and perhaps we can move to another biblical inconsistency. Afterall it's the weight of the hundreds of little inconsistencies that require such stretched explanations that stack up together until it becomes apparent the bible is not the work of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect God. Perhaps when V's mind is weighted down with hundreds of stretched "what-if" explanations he'll suddenly realize what we've been saying all along: the bible is full of errors and inconsistencies. I would think that at some point the weight of believing so many silly/stretched/extra-biblical explanations is too great for an honest person to bear. For laughs here are two short but fun little parables that relate to this strange endeavor of apologetics V has embarked on. <a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/house.htm" target="_blank">The Man who Bought a House</a> <a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ship.htm" target="_blank">The Great Ship</a> [ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

10-17-2002, 04:24 PM	#257
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	Religious people, Leonarde and Radorth had spoken again. Leonarde was an apologetic in hiding in between October 11 and October 16 in this thread, then he had to explain publicly how his thinking of "...1 billion believers..." fits the forum. Still not a iota of physical evidence from them related to backing up their religious beliefs. So, like Vanderzyden here, they have blind faith in a religion, and not reasoning skills allowing for example to see two contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Judas' and three contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Saul'. [ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

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

10-17-2002, 06:59 PM	#258
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Ion, I'm going to let you have the last word since, as I expected, it turned out to be a muddled one. Cheers! ------------------------------------------------ Religious people, Leonarde and Radorth had spoken again. [had??????] Leonarde was an apologetic[?apologetic???] in hiding[????I posted during that period several times] in between October 11 and October 16 in this thread, then he had to explain publicly how his thinking of "...1 billion believers..." fits the forum.[No, how it fits the trajectory of this thread: the question of "recognition" which you brought up] Still not a iota of physical evidence from them related to backing up their religious beliefs.[Because we were interested in the historical Jesus and/or Judas on this thread, not expounding our religious beliefs] So, like Vanderzyden here, they have blind faith in a religion, and not reasoning skills allowing for example to see two contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Judas' and three contradictory accounts in the death of Biblical 'Saul'.[Must you torture the English language as you torture us with your silliness??] ------------------------------------------------- Since I promised Ion the last word here is his: "apologetic" [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

10-17-2002, 10:07 PM	#260
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Ion, 1)I have lots of foreign friends and am very tolerant of shakey English in general. 2)You, however, showed no ability to understand what I was even contending: all you saw was a label, "theist", so I was the "enemy" and so, instead of following the logic of the thread and the line of disputation (of which I had only a small input), you wanted to sidetrack things into what you thought our conversation should be about. 3)The first sentence of Butters' post is also in very bad English. He entered the thread solely to "correct" me but merely showed repeatedly that he doesn't understand what "wide recognition" means. (His muddled English and yours merely ECHOED the muddle-headedness of your posts). 4) A person is an "apologist"; what such a person engages in is "apologetics", not "apologitics" as Butters had it (his second misspelling in his first VERY short sentence). 5)You have enough posts at II that you should be able to distinguish by now between "the historical Jesus" and "the Jesus of faith". The former was mostly the subject (directly or indirectly) of these recent threads: other atheists here understand that. Why you don't is beyond me. 6)Instead you sought to conflate the two by asking for "history books" which talk about miracles. (!) 7)I'm sorry if I insulted you but it was partly a frustration with our non-communication of several days. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.