Israeli Airstrike Destroys UN Observation Post

Yet we must work with the evidence at hand. Saying assuredly that he was solely Jewish when the evidence we have to work with points in a different direction is simply ignoring evidence to solidify your belief.

Wasn't ignoring the evidence, was calling the evidence into question...

Jesus was brought up Jewish, and the only evidence he believed otherwise comes from extremely dubious sources...

That isn't ignoring the argument, it is challenging it....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Yet we must work with the evidence at hand. Saying assuredly that he was solely Jewish when the evidence we have to work with points in a different direction is simply ignoring evidence to solidify your belief.

Wasn't ignoring the evidence, was calling the evidence into question...

Jesus was brought up Jewish, and the only evidence he believed otherwise comes from extremely dubious sources...

That isn't ignoring the argument, it is challenging it....
Click to expand...

Maybe jesus never existed. Making the whole argument pointless. Maybe there's no such thing as jews either. Do you believe jews exist?
 
I wonder if that's what the "theologians" told uscitizen, that jesus never claimed to be the son of god. Uscitizen? Your expertise please?
 
Maybe jesus never existed. Making the whole argument pointless. Maybe there's no such thing as jews either. Do you believe jews exist?

There is independent evidence that Jesus existed (Josephus) and that Jews exist.

What point are you trying to make?
 
I wonder if that's what the "theologians" told uscitizen, that jesus never claimed to be the son of god. Uscitizen? Your expertise please?

Can you think of anybody else who lived in the time of JC who was deified after death?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Maybe jesus never existed. Making the whole argument pointless. Maybe there's no such thing as jews either. Do you believe jews exist?

There is independent evidence that Jesus existed (Josephus) and that Jews exist.

What point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...
Josephus didn't know Christ himself. That evidence would be much the same as the Gospel of Mark, which is generally thought to be written by Mark (second generation Christian) who learned directly from Peter (Apostle, with direct knowledge of Christ).

One must realize that each of those are secondhand knowledge, promoting one to "truth" and saying that it is strong evidence while ignoring the other because it is convenient is selective reasoning and fallacious at its base. One must determine what is "acceptible" evidence.

Did Josephus not remark on one or two of the "miracles" associated with Christ?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I wonder if that's what the "theologians" told uscitizen, that jesus never claimed to be the son of god. Uscitizen? Your expertise please?

Can you think of anybody else who lived in the time of JC who was deified after death?
Click to expand...


He deified himself in life.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Maybe jesus never existed. Making the whole argument pointless. Maybe there's no such thing as jews either. Do you believe jews exist?

There is independent evidence that Jesus existed (Josephus) and that Jews exist.

What point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...

the point Im trying to make is that you argue by selectively questioning the truth of some things, while accepting others as fact, which leaves no basis for even having a discussion with you. this is the idiocy nihilists use to never be wrong in their own idiotic eyes.
 
Josephus stated that it was reported that Jesus was a great teacher who had amassed a large following, and that his body went missing after his execution and that his followers stated he had returned to life.

He provides evidence of Jesus existence, but not of miracles, which are essentially not-understood phenomenon...

The differences in the two sources is simply agenda, Josephus as a historian, the gospel-writers as formers of a new religion.

If Jesus were taken up, and performing such miracles, then it would surely be recorded amongst records in Roman Judea, keeping in mind how fond the Romans were of recording every aspect of life, particularly anything untoward... This occurred well before the Jewish Revolt, during which the gospels were written, at a time of relative peace, so it is unlikely that it would have slipped by....
 
the point Im trying to make is that you argue by selectively questioning the truth of some things, while accepting others as fact,

On the contrary, question the truth of all things, and recognise that some are stronger, and some weaker...

this is the idiocy nihilists use to never be wrong in their own idiotic eyes.

I am not arguing from a nihilist position, and as for never accepting wrongness, aren't you religious???? lol
 
Damocles said:
Yet we must work with the evidence at hand. Saying assuredly that he was solely Jewish when the evidence we have to work with points in a different direction is simply ignoring evidence to solidify your belief. Something that I believe I have seen somebody on this board recently accusing another of.
Click to expand...

Oh he was more than just Jewish Damo, but not a Christian, they did not exist yet. He was what the Christian faith/religion was founded on, but not a Christian.

Don't be twisting my meaning around now :rolleyes:
 
AnyOldIron said:
the point Im trying to make is that you argue by selectively questioning the truth of some things, while accepting others as fact,

On the contrary, question the truth of all things, and recognise that some are stronger, and some weaker...

this is the idiocy nihilists use to never be wrong in their own idiotic eyes.

I am not arguing from a nihilist position, and as for never accepting wrongness, aren't you religious???? lol
Click to expand...

But as I said, you SELECTIVELY question. Will you comprehend the explanation this time?
 
But as I said, you SELECTIVELY question. Will you comprehend the explanation this time?

Numbnuts, I denied this, and stated that I question the truth of all things.
 
AnyOldIron said:
But as I said, you SELECTIVELY question. Will you comprehend the explanation this time?

Numbnuts, I denied this, and stated that I question the truth of all things.
Click to expand...

You don't question the truth of sources which deny jesus's belief. You only question the accounts of the new testament. You're a fraud.
 
uscitizen said:
Oh he was more than just Jewish Damo, but not a Christian, they did not exist yet. He was what the Christian faith/religion was founded on, but not a Christian.

Don't be twisting my meaning around now :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He held the beliefs of a christian. He was the first christian. That makes him christian. Christianity is not based on race, but belief.
 
You don't question the truth of sources which deny jesus's belief. You only question the accounts of the new testament.

What sources that deny Jesus's belief? I am not refering to sources when I question Jesus belief.

You aren't even arguing against what I'm posting... ha ha ha!
 
He held the beliefs of a christian. He was the first christian. That makes him christian. Christianity is not based on race, but belief.

And the only source that you have for his beliefs are dubious, written politically by people who never met him, many years after his death and edited ever since...

You really don't get the point do you.. Tell you what, why not parrot the same thing again.... ha ha ha
 
AnyOldIron said:
Josephus stated that it was reported that Jesus was a great teacher who had amassed a large following, and that his body went missing after his execution and that his followers stated he had returned to life.

He provides evidence of Jesus existence, but not of miracles, which are essentially not-understood phenomenon...

The differences in the two sources is simply agenda, Josephus as a historian, the gospel-writers as formers of a new religion.

If Jesus were taken up, and performing such miracles, then it would surely be recorded amongst records in Roman Judea, keeping in mind how fond the Romans were of recording every aspect of life, particularly anything untoward... This occurred well before the Jewish Revolt, during which the gospels were written, at a time of relative peace, so it is unlikely that it would have slipped by....
Click to expand...
I said he mentioned them. From what I remember, working from memory here, he wrote that he was claimed to have done "great works" as well as the claim of resurrection. Which wasn't as odd as people think at the time.
 
AnyOldIron said:
He held the beliefs of a christian. He was the first christian. That makes him christian. Christianity is not based on race, but belief.

And the only source that you have for his beliefs are dubious, written politically by people who never met him, many years after his death and edited ever since...

You really don't get the point do you.. Tell you what, why not parrot the same thing again.... ha ha ha
Click to expand...
Once again, most of them are suggested to be second-hand accounts directly from the people who were there. Suggesting that every news story must have a participant write it or it could never be "evidence" is simply ridiculous.
 
he wrote that he was claimed to have done "great works" as well as the claim of resurrection.

He did, but Gandhi could be described as having done 'great works'.

Once again, most of them are suggested to be second-hand accounts directly from the people who were there. Suggesting that every news story must have a participant write it or it could never be "evidence" is simply ridiculous.

Not claiming that. Just explaining why I would call them dubious...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top