Keroro1454 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Jesus Is As Real As That Portal Turret On Your Profile Picture Thank you for both a ) Continuing to type in an obnoxious format and b )Providing zero reasoning other than relating the topic to my profile. I might add that the portal turret (in many variations) does exist in the real world, whether in concept or in actual design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dynamite Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Thank you for both a ) Continuing to type in an obnoxious format and b )Providing zero reasoning other than relating the topic to my profile. I might add that the portal turret (in many variations) does exist in the real world, whether in concept or in actual design. An Actual Functioning Portal Turret Does Not Exist At The Very Least It Exists As Plushies And Replicas Which Don't Shoot Actual Bullets From Them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Nope Jesus Just Proves How Much People Are Willing To Believe In Something That Doesn't Actual Exist Jesus Is As Real As That Portal Turret On Your Profile Picture An Actual Functioning Portal Turret Does Not Exist At The Very Least It Exists As Plushies And Replicas Which Don't Shoot Actual Bullets From Them OP = was Jesus a real person? Nearly All Atheist Scientists Historians Believe He Was A Real Person, So You're Being A Foo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dynamite Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 OP = was Jesus a real person? Nearly All Atheist Scientists Believe He Was A Real Person, So You're Being A Foo I Don't Understand What Relevance A Scientist Being An Atheist Has Wouldn't His Opinion Have The Same Weight As A Scientist Who's A Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I Don't Understand What Relevance A Scientist Being An Atheist Has Wouldn't His Opinion Have The Same Weight As A Scientist Who's A Christian? You Seem Very Atheist, So I Was Just Emphasizing That It's Common Knowledge Jesus Existed, Whether Or Not You Believe The Bible (I Do) Is A Whole Other Issue That The Original Poster Of This Thread Wasn't Asking About How The Hell Do You Type Like This It's So Time-Consuming And Annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dynamite Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 You Seem Very Atheist, So I Was Just Emphasizing That It's Common Knowledge Jesus Existed, Whether Or Not You Believe The Bible (I Do) Is A Whole Other Issue That The Original Poster Of This Thread Wasn't Asking About How The Hell Do You Type Like This It's So Time-Consuming And Annoying Jesus Isn't Real You Honkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Jesus Isn't Real You Honkie Good For You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 OP = was Jesus a real person? Nearly All Atheist Scientists Believe He Was A Real Person, So You're Being A Foo Um... evidence for this conclusion, please? Also, why not try to make this claim about historians instead? Why claim scientists believe this? Is it because you subconsciously place high importance on the beliefs of scientists? I think your claim would've been more fitting if it was about historians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Um... evidence for this conclusion, please? Also, why not try to make this claim about historians instead? Why claim scientists believe this? Is it because you subconsciously place high importance on the beliefs of scientists? I think your claim would've been more fitting if it was about historians. Yeah my bad, historians is what I meant. Also, if historians believe that Jesus was a real person, then I'm pretty sure a logical, atheist scientist would believe it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Just a thought - he could have been a legend (i.e part of folklore) like Romulus/Achilles etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yeah my bad, historians is what I meant. Also, if historians believe that Jesus was a real person, then I'm pretty sure a logical, atheist scientist would believe it too. Evidence is what should convince a logical scientist, not the mere beliefs of others. Evidence. Can we have the support for your claim? This is the 2nd time I'm asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Evidence is what should convince a logical scientist, not the mere beliefs of others. Evidence. Can we have the support for your claim? This is the 2nd time I'm asking. Uh what I meant to say in my original comment was that nearly all historians (including atheist ones) believe that he was a real figure, so if you want prove of that, go here: https://www.google.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Uh what I meant to say in my original comment was that nearly all historians (including atheist ones) believe that he was a real figure, so if you want prove of that, go here: https://www.google.com/ If you can't be bothered to provide support your own claim, just say so. Don't try to put it on me. This is the third and final time I will ask: can you provide any support for your claim? For clarity, I mean the claim you say you meant to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatrix Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Jesus comes from the Hebrew to Greek to Latin translation of Yahushua. his fucking name is actually josh, isn't that weird as fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 This is the third and final time I will ask: can you provide any support for your claim? I'd rather avoid the argument, but I did a quick google on the matter. The sources appear verifiable, and the information is interesting to say the least. As a Catholic, of course I believe he existed, but often I find the actuality of his history (Geographical evidence suggesting contrary to commonly referenced info in the Bible, etc.) to be extremely interesting. Essentially, my Theology class I'm taking has been extremely good as it isn't blindly feeding me "Love Jesus" garbage and instead is teaching me the actual facts (Apparently Jesus was likely a artisan, and of the upper-middle class. Huh.) . Now, I'm no expert on the question, just to clarify. And in case someone was wondering this, Mark is the most reliable Gospel by far thanks to its date and simplicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_JesusThis has a lot of stuff that acts as evidence of Jesus existing. This refers to him as a person, rather than the Son of God- its purely historical. http://www.livescience.com/38014-physical-evidence-jesus-debated.htmlThis has some really interesting points about various physical "evidence" the Church sometimes officially or unofficially claims to have. I'd like to point out in reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "righteous teacher" referenced is, if its discussing the War Scroll as I assume it is, then the righteous teacher would be in reference to the supposed Prophetic Messiah, or Messiah of Aaron, that the Essenes (People who wrote the scrolls- they were a fringe Jewish movement) believed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I'd rather avoid the argument, but I did a quick google on the matter. The sources appear verifiable, and the information is interesting to say the least. As a Catholic, of course I believe he existed, but often I find the actuality of his history (Geographical evidence suggesting contrary to commonly referenced info in the Bible, etc.) to be extremely interesting. Essentially, my Theology class I'm taking has been extremely good as it isn't blindly feeding me "Love Jesus" garbage and instead is teaching me the actual facts (Apparently Jesus was likely a artisan, and of the upper-middle class. Huh.) . Now, I'm no expert on the question, just to clarify. And in case someone was wondering this, Mark is the most reliable Gospel by far thanks to its date and simplicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_JesusThis has a lot of stuff that acts as evidence of Jesus existing. This refers to him as a person, rather than the Son of God- its purely historical. http://www.livescience.com/38014-physical-evidence-jesus-debated.htmlThis has some really interesting points about various physical "evidence" the Church sometimes officially or unofficially claims to have. I'd like to point out in reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "righteous teacher" referenced is, if its discussing the War Scroll as I assume it is, then the righteous teacher would be in reference to the supposed Prophetic Messiah, or Messiah of Aaron, that the Essenes (People who wrote the scrolls- they were a fringe Jewish movement) believed in. Dude, no offense, but you didn't even address the actual claim he made. The claim is that most historians, including atheists, believe Jesus was a real person. As much as I'd love to sit here and tear down a bunch of red herrings (I call them red herrings because they are often used to distract from the main issue which is that there's no proof that the guy actually existed), some of which I believe I may have already addressed in this very thread anyway (IDK, I'm tired, but I think I might have. edit: yeah, I did), I'd rather just leave it for now and give Chigga the opportunity to back up his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Heated Bread > Historians are doing their jobs and usually don't shout their convictions and beliefs in public place. So when you ask Chigga to prove his statement, it is quite a hard job you ask him to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Dude, no offense, but you didn't even address the actual claim he made. The claim is that most historians, including atheists, believe Jesus was a real person. Ah, sorry. I had used these links, most notably the first one, to prove that historians do believe to have reliable accounts that reference Christ. The writings of Josephus, which historians largely agree to be factual, reference Jesus, which as the article I presented discusses, historians believe (at least in sections) to be legitimate. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that historians would trust in what Josephus mentions (Can't say I can prove the atheist point though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Ah, sorry. I had used these links, most notably the first one, to prove that historians do believe to have reliable accounts that reference Christ. The writings of Josephus, which historians largely agree to be factual, reference Jesus, which as the article I presented discusses, historians believe (at least in sections) to be legitimate. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that historians would trust in what Josephus mentions (Can't say I can prove the atheist point though). Even the wikipedia you mentioned references the widespread doubt about the authenticity of of that entry by Josephus; that it is suspected to be a forgery based on some previous entry which was likely doctored in some way. It's also important to note that as I previously stated, there are no mentions of Jesus found anywhere within his own supposed lifetime, and this obviously includes that single mention within Josephus's writings. What's also happening here is that you are failing to see the problem within the claim itself. The claim addresses belief. What most historians have said is that they thought it was likely that there could have been a real person upon which the cult and mythology of Jesus was based. This is not the same as affirming a belief in the positive, but what christians like to do is turn "most historians agree it is likely that there was a real person on which the story of Jesus is based" to "dude, historians totally believe Jesus was a real person". It's probably part enthusiasm (an honest mistake made by well-meaning christians) and part propaganda (a deliberate misrepresentation made by slimy hucksters). The reality is that a reasonable person (and a professional who is concerned with evidence) withholds belief in the absence of sufficient evidence. It is more reasonable to discuss the likelihood of a proposition when there is not sufficient evidence to fully support it, and this is consequently what the actual academic discussion of the subject is mostly concerned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 So here's an interesting discussion about the historicity of Jesus, disparities within the texts of the gospels and between the bible and modern christianity, as well as the possible origins of certain jewish and christian myths and beliefs and their similarities to (and possible plagiarism from) pre-exisitng religions. A lot of it might be familiar (and boring) to non-christians, but it might be a bit of a mind-fuck to those catholics and protestants who haven't been exposed to it before. FYI, a protestant is basically a non-catholic christian who doesn't recognize the authority of the catholic church. A lot of present day christians don't know this, so I thought I'd just mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 A lot of it might be familiar (and boring) to non-christians, but it might be a bit of a mind-fuck to those catholics and protestants who haven't been exposed to it before. FYI, a protestant is basically a non-catholic christian who doesn't recognize the authority of the catholic church. A lot of present day christians don't know this, so I thought I'd just mention it. For future reference, you can just say Christian, as it's an all-encompassing term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think it's an important distinction. They even have different bibles. Catholic bibles include books that protestants don't. That by itself is pretty major. Many protestants still think that the catholic church is evil, some even going as far as saying that revelations is referring to it. It's been a few years, but from what I recall, it's an interpretation of revelations that is not favorable to the catholic church, painting it as having a hand in the end times. Crazy stuff to most people. But it's entertaining as hell to listen to. Oh, and then there's the centuries of bloody conflict between the two that's continued into modern times... Eh, but you're probably right. Most people here probably don't care about that distinction, and the umbrella term of 'christian' makes it seem like they're all one big happy family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think it's an important distinction. They even have different bibles. Catholic bibles include books that protestants don't. That by itself is pretty major. Many protestants still think that the catholic church is evil, some even going as far as saying that revelations is referring to it. It's been a few years, but from what I recall, it's an interpretation of revelations that is not favorable to the catholic church, painting it as having a hand in the end times. Crazy stuff to most people. But it's entertaining as hell to listen to. Oh, and then there's the centuries of bloody conflict between the two that's continued into modern times... Eh, but you're probably right. Most people here probably don't care about that distinction, and the umbrella term of 'christian' makes it seem like they're all one big happy family. True. Although I'm not sure what you mean when referring to modern day bloody conflicts between the two. However, the term Christian is usually used in terms of referring to one who believes in Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Ireland would be the obvious example, I think. As far as I know, they're still sitting on a tense truce that was only established relatively recently, but I wouldn't be surprised if it flared up again as I just got done reading an article from 2014 that painted a pretty uneasy picture. I don't know much about current events there, TBH, so I guess it's better if I just point you at the wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles The article says it's not a religious conflict, which I partially agree with because there is obviously a strong political struggle driving it, but one cannot deny that it is fairly well divided along religious lines, the separatists being overwhelmingly catholic and the loyalists being overwhelmingly protestant. To me it just looks like the two faiths fighting eachother for power, and there are people who quite eagerly want to claim that religion plays no part in the conflict just as we see people doing with muslim terrorists, for example. Whenever a religion is associated with something widely viewed as being bad, you end up having people come out of the woodwork trying to claim that religion is not to blame. Sometimes they're probably right. In this case, I am dubious. Just look at the history between the protestants and catholics in that region, included in the background section of the article. edit: here's a documentary I found on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSb_XhN2L6s you'll probably notice that right away they start talking about it along religious divisions another documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox-HFjkusGk I don't expect you to watch the entirety of both of these as they are quite long, but I encourage you to watch the first 10 minutes or so of each of them at least, as long as you're curious of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 FYI Sinn Fein is full of ex-IRA members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.