Interestingly, I listened to a biography of Isaac Newton this past week while traveling. He considered his theories on physics (calculus, gravity, forces, optics, est.) to be philosophical endeavors.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
K, who was more influential? His existence even changed the way time was kept. It is the year 2011 AD. This is not the Jewish calender, Egyptian, Greek, etc, it’s Christian and the whole world uses it. Do you take Sundays off? Even communists did. What’s the largest faith in the world? The entire world was affected in the end.
I guarantee Lady Gaga could never do that… [/quote]
And I forgot, Sunday was stolen from Mithraism.
I do conceded the entire world has been affected, by all religion.
I have no opinion on Lady Gaga.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
You mean that’s what happens when you are want to rigorously applying logic in one discipline, but would like to abandon it for the other. And it’s not a nit picking “bible has to be 100% accurate” argument, along with that ridiculous “cv joint” analogy. It’s a “either Jesus is/was divine, or he was not” argument. The people that were there didn’t seem to be too impressed with those claims (except for his reported followers) - wouldn’t you agree?
His divinity was I guess disputed then, and remains so now. Why is that “nonsense”? Because it doesn’t comport with your personal view?[/quote]
First off, why are we arguing Jesus’ divinity here?
I’d say whatever he did he made one hell of an impact because his legacy still lives. Much of the world 1000s of years later, still know about what he did. [/quote]
Even atheists still want to take Christmas off…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Like I said, it’s real easy to disprove what I said, produce somebody who was more influential than Jesus… Shouldn’t be hard, right?
[/quote]
First an appeals to numbers fallacy and now just an invitation to a regular old pissing contest? No thanks Pat.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
K, who was more influential? His existence even changed the way time was kept. It is the year 2011 AD. This is not the Jewish calender, Egyptian, Greek, etc, it’s Christian and the whole world uses it. Do you take Sundays off? Even communists did. What’s the largest faith in the world? The entire world was affected in the end.
I guarantee Lady Gaga could never do that… [/quote]
Is that an Appeal to Numbers fallacy you just dropped there? If we are going to do that, well then in fairness we need to consider the crux of the argument in it’s proper context - the divinity of Jesus. We therefore have Christianity on one side, and well…all the other major religions on the other which outnumber Christians soundly.
Pope Gregory XIII (1502 - 1585) instituted the current calendar some 1500 years after Jesus is alleged to have walked? So, in fairness, let’s give credit where credit is due - the Catholic Church, the same people that told you, among other things, the earth was the center of the universe. While we’re on the subject of the Good Pope Gregory XIII, I’d like for you to take a gander at his medal. That’s some curious symbology for a Pope…wouldn’t ya say? Now, here’s somewhere finally where BC may be of some use.
[/quote]
Appeal to numbers fallacy? We’re talking about influence, numbers matter. I still am looking for the one singular person who had more influence in the history of the world than Jesus…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Why keep diverting the topics? why are we now on the fulfillment of OT prophecy? What does that have to do with anything?
Who’s had more impact? Simple question.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
You mean that’s what happens when you are want to rigorously applying logic in one discipline, but would like to abandon it for the other. And it’s not a nit picking “bible has to be 100% accurate” argument, along with that ridiculous “cv joint” analogy. It’s a “either Jesus is/was divine, or he was not” argument. The people that were there didn’t seem to be too impressed with those claims (except for his reported followers) - wouldn’t you agree?
His divinity was I guess disputed then, and remains so now. Why is that “nonsense”? Because it doesn’t comport with your personal view?[/quote]
First off, why are we arguing Jesus’ divinity here?
I’d say whatever he did he made one hell of an impact because his legacy still lives. Much of the world 1000s of years later, still know about what he did. [/quote]
Even atheists still want to take Christmas off…[/quote]
As I’m sure you’re not opposed to the occasional freebie Jewish holiday day off either…or any other free day off. It’s getting chippy in here again…or is it just me again???
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Every single Jew rejected him? Some body tell the apostles, since it was they, Jews who started Christianity.
Yup, the Pharasies did reject him, and tried quell the movement, how that turn out?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
K, who was more influential? His existence even changed the way time was kept. It is the year 2011 AD. This is not the Jewish calender, Egyptian, Greek, etc, it’s Christian and the whole world uses it. Do you take Sundays off? Even communists did. What’s the largest faith in the world? The entire world was affected in the end.
I guarantee Lady Gaga could never do that… [/quote]
Is that an Appeal to Numbers fallacy you just dropped there? If we are going to do that, well then in fairness we need to consider the crux of the argument in it’s proper context - the divinity of Jesus. We therefore have Christianity on one side, and well…all the other major religions on the other which outnumber Christians soundly.
Pope Gregory XIII (1502 - 1585) instituted the current calendar some 1500 years after Jesus is alleged to have walked? So, in fairness, let’s give credit where credit is due - the Catholic Church, the same people that told you, among other things, the earth was the center of the universe. While we’re on the subject of the Good Pope Gregory XIII, I’d like for you to take a gander at his medal. That’s some curious symbology for a Pope…wouldn’t ya say? Now, here’s somewhere finally where BC may be of some use.
[/quote]
Appeal to numbers fallacy? We’re talking about influence, numbers matter. I still am looking for the one singular person who had more influence in the history of the world than Jesus…[/quote]
A fallacious argument by any other color is still…a fallacious argument Pat. Or are you only so rigorous when it suits you?
In terms of numbers, he didn’t win many over at all. His early and later followers did. So, I’d have to give credit to the Church.
In terms of “influence”, that’s a beauty contest. There has been many “influences” over time, some good, some bad. There are those that would argue the influence of christianity has been bad. There have been many good, and bad people “influence” history.
As I already said, if you want to hold onto your fallacious argument, then you must concede to those that reject his divinity as outnumbering those that accept it. Or it logic only suitable to you …when it suits you?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Like I said, it’s real easy to disprove what I said, produce somebody who was more influential than Jesus… Shouldn’t be hard, right?
[/quote]
First an appeals to numbers fallacy and now just an invitation to a regular old pissing contest? No thanks Pat. [/quote]
Uh, when you are talking about influence numbers matter. An influence of 10 people is a greater influence that influencing one…You really need to study your fallacies. Besides the name is actually ‘argumentum ad populum’…Just sayin’
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Every single Jew rejected him? Some body tell the apostles, since it was they, Jews who started Christianity.
Yup, the Pharasies did reject him, and tried quell the movement, how that turn out?[/quote]
Another PWI fallacious favorite. I did not state that “every single Jew rejected him” and you know it.
Are you serious? You sound like another PWI regular now.
May I suggest you locate that staunch discipline you employ while arguing the CA, unless of course you just plagiarize those CA arguments and do not really possess such intellectual discipline.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Like I said, it’s real easy to disprove what I said, produce somebody who was more influential than Jesus… Shouldn’t be hard, right?
[/quote]
First an appeals to numbers fallacy and now just an invitation to a regular old pissing contest? No thanks Pat. [/quote]
Uh, when you are talking about influence numbers matter. An influence of 10 people is a greater influence that influencing one…You really need to study your fallacies. Besides the name is actually ‘argumentum ad populum’…Just sayin’[/quote]
I already clarified…put into its proper context, if you must hold onto your argument (now in Latin in your effort be intellectually snobby), then you must now consider all that oppose the divinity, which greatly outnumber those that accept it.
And, Jesus himself influenced few…it was the Church that influenced many. And forgive me, they had some other influences along the way that I hope you don’t mind if I do not accept their guidance on blind faith 
Islam claims that 2nd largest influence under your “analysis”. Are you ready to embrace it?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Why keep diverting the topics? why are we now on the fulfillment of OT prophecy? What does that have to do with anything?
Who’s had more impact? Simple question.[/quote]
Good point. I am done with it starting now. Like I said he will take any topic and try to bash Christians or Christianity, I simply fell in to the trap rather than ignoring the bigotry like I should have. Like I said I will not speak about it again here. I will save that for threads where that topic is discussed.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Why keep diverting the topics? why are we now on the fulfillment of OT prophecy? What does that have to do with anything?
Who’s had more impact? Simple question.[/quote]
Good point. I am done with it starting now. Like I said he will take any topic and try to bash Christians or Christianity, I simply fell in to the trap rather than ignoring the bigotry like I should have. Like I said I will not speak about it again here. I will save that for threads where that topic is discussed.[/quote]
Dude, you’re tired. Really. It’s the same old same old here, no matter what post, thread or month. Find me ONE single sentence I wrote that “bashed Christianity”. You can argue in circles forever about the CA, saying “gotcha” at every chance, but when the subject turns to religion, you melt into hysterics, fallacious arguments and ad hominems…and out right lies now. Reminds me of another guy around here. Makes me actually think I’m arguing with two different people or, that you’re just wholesale plagiarizing CA arguments because you sure haven’t shown the vigorous logical discipline you so proudly strutted about with in the CA threads.
You have now Appealed to Widespread Belief, Popularity, you have wholesale misrepresented one of my points of contention (claiming I said ALL jews rejected Jesus), you have uttered an outright lie (I’m “bashing Christianity” and “take ANY topic” to do so) and now you’re trying to claim some high ground as if you were “trapped” as you say. LOL. Dude, for the record, I have a KJV Bible next to my bed in my nightstand. You act like I’m out burning the Koran, er, I mean bible…oh wait, nevermind.
And I’m not certain, but I don’t believe I took the thread in this direction, but I happily participated, as did you. But let’s not pretend that OPs purposefully provocative thread title and follow ups wasn’t an implicit defense of religion. Surely you’re not that dull - even when you’re being pigheaded.
In before you say I “teach 20 year olds how to make home porn”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why keep diverting the topics? why are we now on the fulfillment of OT prophecy? What does that have to do with anything?
Who’s had more impact? Simple question.[/quote]
Asked and answered. Simple. Read.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?[/quote]
I don’t have a list. Are we giving grades here?
At the end of the day, if you believe his historicity, then you must conceded he walked among his own people, who rejected him. And that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the OT according to his own people.
[/quote]
Why keep diverting the topics? why are we now on the fulfillment of OT prophecy? What does that have to do with anything?
Who’s had more impact? Simple question.[/quote]
Good point. I am done with it starting now. Like I said he will take any topic and try to bash Christians or Christianity, I simply fell in to the trap rather than ignoring the bigotry like I should have. Like I said I will not speak about it again here. I will save that for threads where that topic is discussed.[/quote]
Dude, you’re tired. Really. It’s the same old same old here, no matter what post, thread or month. Find me ONE single sentence I wrote that “bashed Christianity”. You can argue in circles forever about the CA, saying “gotcha” at every chance, but when the subject turns to religion, you melt into hysterics, fallacious arguments and ad hominems…and out right lies now. Reminds me of another guy around here. Makes me actually think I’m arguing with two different people or, that you’re just wholesale plagiarizing CA arguments because you sure haven’t shown the vigorous logical discipline you so proudly strutted about with in the CA threads.
You have now Appealed to Widespread Belief, Popularity, you have wholesale misrepresented one of my points of contention (claiming I said ALL jews rejected Jesus), you have uttered an outright lie (I’m “bashing Christianity” and “take ANY topic” to do so) and now you’re trying to claim some high ground as if you were “trapped” as you say. LOL. Dude, for the record, I have a KJV Bible next to my bed in my nightstand. You act like I’m out burning the Koran, er, I mean bible…oh wait, nevermind.
And I’m not certain, but I don’t believe I took the thread in this direction, but I happily participated, as did you. But let’s not pretend that OPs purposefully provocative thread title and follow ups wasn’t an implicit defense of religion. Surely you’re not that dull - even when you’re being pigheaded.
In before you say I “teach 20 year olds how to make home porn”. [/quote]
Yep, same old same old alright. Accusing people of things they do not do based on things that were not said, by naming fallacies that do not exist, making reference to emotions not expressed.
Yes I am tired. Tired of this sorry bullshit.
Anyhow, if you want to discuss religion or the bible or any of that stuff, do it in one of the many religious threads. This thread is not about that and for the sake of others, it is right to keep it out. There is a ‘Catholic Q & A’, you can bump that one up if you want to discuss the validity of the bible, divinity of Christ or any of that. That’s the appropriate place.
[quote]pat wrote:
Accusing people of things they do not do based on things that were not said, by naming fallacies that do not exist, making reference to emotions not expressed.
[/quote]
O really? Do I need to quote it back to you?
That’s your playbook buddy. The PWI playbook.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.
Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.
Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]
I’m confused (not really ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.
No you don’t, so yes you are.
Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?
The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.
BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.
Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]
Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.
Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]
And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]
Exactly, and the reason why Christians should stop using it as one. We cannot say on historical grounds that Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, etc.
It’s Theology, not history.
[/quote]
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
Of course I do not deny his significance or impact, i’m just saying that there is no historical evidence for what the Bible says about him.’
If I am going to base my life on something I want to know that the book I am relying on is accurate and based of facts, historical facts. When the Bible is put to this scrutiny, it is obvious it is not.
It is very likely that Jesus existed.
It is very likely he was a charismatic figure who had followers, who would make claims that he could walk on water, etc.
Just think about any celebrity, they have cult like followings.
it is perfectly likely that this man, in consideration of these stories of him, would get in trouble with the the Romans, and subsequently get get hung to cross…
those things could have easily have happened.
But was he born to a virgin, aand blah blah blah,…probably not. There is no evidence for that.
The fact is, the Bible is not a history book, but a theological book not meant to be taken seriously in any form.
I mean If JK Rowling were to put in Harry Potter that he was God, I could use your same defense you claim for the Bible, in defense of Harry Potter being God.
Because it says it in a book, and you could not argue against it because it is not a history book. And if you dont beleive I tell you to have faith.
and if you have any questions about it I’ll tell you
tell you that Harry Potter works in mysterious ways…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
[/quote]
Interesting, what do you think it stands for?
This actually has a a name and it’s called the ‘Problem of Evil’. But then again, do you want God to interfere in your life? I would reconcile this with freewill. If God is sticking his nose into our business all the time, we wouldn’t really have freewill.
[quote]
He is either 3 things:
-
not capable of intervening and helping
Which would completely contradict the Bible as he has helped entire armies… -
Doesn’t care
Which I am far more afraid of then their being no God
or
- He doesn’t Exist
In consideration of all of the terrible things in this world I hope He doesnt exist…[/quote]
I am the opposite, in consideration of all the terrible things in the world I want him to exist so he will eventually bring justice. However, I get your point and I do understand it. I some times “get mad at God” so to speak for allowing the depth of evil that occurs in the world. But in the bible it does prophesize that the world would be all fucked up and that one day he will put a stop to it.
It also prophesized that Israel would be restored and in 1947 it did indeed happen, so there you go. BUT no body knows when all this is supposed to happen and any nut job claiming to is full of shit and glory seeking for themselves.
Of course if every generation keeps prophesizing the world is coming to an end, eventually somebody will be right.
Now no law says you have to believe, and I am not going to try to make you believe, but if you have any questions I will be happy to answer. [/quote]
I am familiar withe the “problem of Evil” I just prefer not to use the term “evil” as is gives a supernatural aspect that I do not like.
Free will does not take into account,
Disease or natural disasters…
Not a strong argument.