Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

Quote from MarketMasher:

A theory is a THEORY. Theories can never be proven. That is basic. Theories are always subject to falsification.

You claim to have certainty (your word) that God does not exist.

You are a preacher of certainty. This places you above scientists, who can never prove their theories, into the realm of the All-knowing.

Just because you don't want to recognize synonyms doesn't mean they don't exist.
More...

A proven THEORY is a fact !
Scientific theories which become proven, constantly become scientific facts.


I claim certainty is not required. You claim I preach certainty.
You're making a false claim.

You claim something "All-Knowing". You claim an absolute.
Self contradictorily you suggest at least, the certainty of an absolute.

Science is fact without certainty. You're claiming a certainty of "All-Knowing" without fact.

Who you trying to kid.
 
Quote from stu:

A proven THEORY is a fact !
Scientific theories which become proven, constantly become scientific facts.


I claim certainty is not required. You claim I preach certainty.
You're making a false claim.

You claim something "All-Knowing". You claim an absolute.
Self contradictorily you suggest at least, the certainty of an absolute.

Science is fact without certainty. You're claiming a certainty of "All-Knowing" without fact.

Who you trying to kid.
More...

YOU used the word "certainty". Do you really need a link to your own post? You made the claim. (see page 41).

You claim certainty. Therefore you are not claiming science, where theories can never be proved (and are always open to change).

Instead, what you are claiming - preaching - is religion.

It may not be as formalized as a bible-thumping evangelical's, but it is religion nonetheless. Fixed. Immutable. Certain.

And preached from a position of being All-Knowing on the topic.

All under the guise of being anti-religion.

Who do you think you're kidding, preacher?
 
Quote from stu:

Every time you get a link or a reference, you misread, misrepresent, misunderstand , dismiss, abuse or deny it.

Here is what your own infidel’s link actually says in its context, and not via your bigoted selective viewpoint.


  • Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

    On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.


The upshot is... it 's easy to notice , there is nothing in there qualifying as historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. Unsupported references within (spurious) Josephus text is NOT historical evidence of an historical Jesus.

Historians provide corroborated sources and primary evidence for the historicity of people.
There is NONE in Josephus or anywhere else whatsoever through the whole of history, for bible Jesus that meets with even the minimum requirements of historical evidence.

Without which of course, leaves bible Jesus as a fictional character.
More...

1. You are the abusive zealout... I just respond in kind.

2. Your reasoning is twisted.... Read the passages again.

The best infidels.org could muster against the second passage was the undocumented claim that "some scholars" thought it might be problem. (where are those scholars... who are they)

and in the end they admit there is not enough ( there is actually no evidence) to conclude the second passage is fraudulent.

hence by definition Jesus is a historical figure.

And note - that site is infidels.org. That is about as slanted a site as you can get for your side.
 
Jem, "who heard him?" I do not study this, but is very good question. "Who heard him?"




"Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him?"
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
 
Quote from stu:

Self evidently not a logical axiom.
More...

Axioms by definition cannot be falsified.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Perhaps YOU should brush up on YOUR logic:D
 
Quote from trendlover:

Jem, "who heard him?" I do not study this, but is very good question. "Who heard him?"




"Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him?"
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
More...

that seems to be a question as to his divinity not his historicity.

your link seemed to make a very slanted and weak point about hearsay.

Another clown author taking a legal concept and applying it to ancient history.

As I told Stu, just about ever ancient historical record would be excised from history if we allowed this foolish layman's concept of hearsay.

In fact if you think it through, to overcome the layman's hearsay concept Jesus would have to come back for a second time.

In realty courts allow in all kinds of evidence over a hearsay objection.

Historical records and documents being one exception.
Josephus second passage would surely come in.
 
lol
Managed to log into ET without help from your other schizo alias today Jem?

Slammed by the Bible too. How much worse could you do.

Obviously with no sensible or valid ordinary or legal concept of hearsay, couldn't spell cite and haven't been able to apply even the basics of hearsay ..... but you called yourself a lawyer.... yea right.

Josephus is shown to have very few entries about Jesus, what they are come dubiously enough, but almost 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have lived. That is hearsay

Only in an unenlightened ignorance could you imaginge Jesus, whatever Jesus is supposed to be , would have to be heard, let alone come back for a second time, when there is no evidence of one appearing for a first time.

It would simply take some primary external historically valid source to confirm what Josephus is alleged to have written, is accurate , probable or plausible .
There is nothing anywhere throughout the whole of history which does that. Obviously not, when a subject, Jesus in this case, is fictional.

Josephus is fundamentally hearsay.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Axioms by definition cannot be falsified.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Perhaps YOU should brush up on YOUR logic:D
More...
Obviously you see no sense of fun or irony in my reply.
Nevertheless perhaps then, YOU should brush up on YOUR axioms and your math.

Axioms by definition can indeed be non-logical. Now with that 'big grin' you look a dick.

"I believe in a God because it is the logical thing to do."

Thing is, your statement is merely a personal assertion. Not an axiom. Nor externally logical.

Obviously, to recognize an axiom is an axiom, especially as the starting assertion in a particular argument , it would itself have to be generally accepted as self-evident, or indeed decided valid by those concerned in it.

An internally inconsistent illogical statement is not going to stand as an axiom.
Belief in a God is not logically or necessarily "the logical thing to do."

Certainly not when based upon Pascal's Wager as you put forward. It is not the logical proposition you obviously think it is.

Perhaps you should have brushed up on that first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top