do i have an attitude? maybe one of levity.but i'm not arrogant if that's what you mean. i have a very wry dry sense of humor.
i am ready, show me the evidence.
Religion is a hypothesis.
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
do i have an attitude? maybe one of levity.but i'm not arrogant if that's what you mean. i have a very wry dry sense of humor.
i am ready, show me the evidence.
Quote from killthesunshine:
i wasn't there. neither were you or anyone on this board. you are relying on hearsay .. that's not admissible as evidence
just a note - hearsay is frequently admissible as evidence via one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
basically hearsay is objectionable when there a better way to get good evidence in.
However, if you have good reliable evidence a good lawyer is going to find a way to get it in.
interesting, how is the hearsay evaluated for truthfulness and accuracy? obviously, all hearsay is not equal.
I don't think the excited utterance exception applies to Jesus saying "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Doesn't sound excited to me.
More to the point, recently some Biblical scholars doubt even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, much less his alleged divinity. There's no record of such a person in the Roman records, and the Romans kept better records than the Jews. None of the so-called miracles of Jesus were recorded separately by Roman record keepers. Just like Joshua's alleged 48-hour day was recorded by no other civilization but the Jews. You'd think such extraordinary events would have impacted other cultures, not just the Jews or the early Christians.
Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.
â Richard Dawkins
HERE is the wisdom!
â Richard Dawkins
HERE is the wisdom!
What about these guys:1)Tacitus and 2)Pliny
1) Tacitus was a Roman historian living during the time of Jesus. His Annals, written about 115
AD, mention the emperor Nero's persecution of the followers of Christ in Rome in 64AD - the
year of the great fire. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is
what Tacitus writes:
"To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments,
some people, popularly known as Christiansâ¦. The originator of that name, Christus
[Jesus Christ], had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator
Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again
not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty
and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following." (Annals 15:44)
Although not very flattering to Christians, notice the following points from Tacitus:
⢠Christ not only existed but was executed while Tiberis was emperor (14-37 AD),
⢠He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD),
⢠Christianity had its origins in Judea,
⢠There were enough followers of Christ in Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the
emperor Nero.
2) Pliny was the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, in present-day Turkey. In about 112
AD he wrote to the emperor Trajan asking for advice on how to deal with the followers of Christ
in his province because he was executing so many of them. In Epistles X.96 Pliny wrote:
"They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate
verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do
any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray
any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then
they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless)."
Notice from what Pliny says that:
⢠By the beginning of the second century, there was already a Christian community in
Bithynia large enough to come to the attention of the Roman governor,
⢠They practiced the teachings of Christ and were honorable people,
⢠They worshipped Christ as God.
Your argument/statement=100% circular argument.
You first have to have truth to know truth...it is impossible to recognize truth without knowing truth in the first place. What you call truth is just some conditional duality of mind...
Otherwise you will never recognize it, mistaking circular reasoning for actually truth seeking...being satisfied with noting but propositional truths...
A priori rocks, a posteriori sucks butt...
You first have to have truth to know truth...it is impossible to recognize truth without knowing truth in the first place. What you call truth is just some conditional duality of mind...
Otherwise you will never recognize it, mistaking circular reasoning for actually truth seeking...being satisfied with noting but propositional truths...
A priori rocks, a posteriori sucks butt...
Quote from killthesunshine:
i seek only the truth. give me the truth, but give me the evidence too! for only in the evidence lies the truth!
it is impossible to recognize truth without knowing truth in the first place.
you know what you recognize and recognize only what you know?
that's not circular reasoning
All your reasoning is circular you dope, it is all referential to an unknown truth. It is nothing but a relativistic game, in your case, a game played quite badly due to your lack of a command of logic or the English language...
Only a priori knowledge could possibly be an avenue to something real and a truth of independent status worthy of a starting point of seeking knowledge...
You are the typical a posterori sucking atheist...
Only a priori knowledge could possibly be an avenue to something real and a truth of independent status worthy of a starting point of seeking knowledge...
You are the typical a posterori sucking atheist...
Quote from killthesunshine:
stu, stu, please come and rescue me!!!
Of course Christians were real. Without Christians there would be no Christianity.
The question is about Jesus. Tacitus did not live during the time of Jesus; he was born over two decades after Jesus' alleged crucifixion (and resurrection). Why was no historical record made during the lifetime of Jesus? Not just by the Romans, not even by the Christians themselves. The earliest Gospel wasn't written until at least a quarter century after the life of Jesus:
"Scholars generally date the synoptic gospels as having been written after the epistles of Paul and before the gospel according to John, thus between 60 and 115 AD."
So Paul, who admits never having met Jesus during his life, was writing about Jesus before the so-called Apostles who actually lived with Jesus. How interesting, or, as ET theists might put it, how convenient!