Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 105 of 105
  1. #101
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,209
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Double Standards for Determining the Veracity of Holy Scripture

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Why are testimonials being discussed here?

    I've already shown that attempting to use evidence to "prove" a religion true is asinine and leads one to an illogical conclusion. If you want to discuss testimonials, first you need to address my claim, which Vand has already conceded is true.
    This is a side issue. And does not seek to prove any religion.

    I took issue with this quote from Zhavric...

    Quote Originally Posted by zhavric
    We haven't the slightest shred of evidence any of them existed and most of them are attributed tales too wild to be believed by men living centuries after they allegedly existed.
    ...and am debating it's merit. This discussion may better existed in another thread.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    So, Christians have it wrong. Tacitus' mention of Jesus is there for definition purposes, not as a statement of fact of Jesus' life. If someone wrote, "There are these people called Scientologists. They're just some cult that worshipped some dude named Xenu." You wouldn't conclude that Xenu existed from this writing no matter how much evidence of Scientologists you had... nor would you conclude Xenu to be real if it was written by a respected scholar. You'd evaluate the evidence honestly and conclude the obvious: in the case of Tacitus, he was just the first person in nearly 1900 year line to observe Christians and assume (without evidence) that there must have been a Christ.
    From the above, there is no grounds to question the historicity of such a person named Xenu to have existed. Other then the weird sounding name, there is in fact no reasons at all to doubt it.

    Which is far different from the question of whether all the details advanced on Xenu by Scientologist are in fact true. That is a totally separate question. Of course, the exemple does not transpose well, since Xenu is an extra-terrestrial, and Jesus human.
    Last edited by Vandaler; May 15th, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  2. #102
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Double Standards for Determining the Veracity of Holy Scripture

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    Christians read that as proof that Jesus existed. It's not. Tacitus never studied up on Christians and gave no indication that he interviewed or spoke to anyone who would have known Jesus (mostly because Jesus didn't exist, but we can table that for now).
    Bull. How do you know that Tacitus never studied up on the Christians or spoke to anyone on the matter. Oh I get it, you read Tacitus's mind.

    Perhaps you didn't get my point.

    Tacitus doesn't give any indication of sources for basically all of the history which he recorded, yet he remains the greatest of Romes historians. Thats because there didn't exist in ancient times this expectation that we reference every source we use.

    Well obviously he knew enough knew enough to know that Jesus was killed under the orders of Pilate.

    You have no way to prove that Tacitus didn't research the matter or gather any information from sources. And you are also ignoring the fact that his lack of such sources is perfectly in line with his style and the expectations of the times.
    So, Christians have it wrong. Tacitus' mention of Jesus is there for definition purposes, not as a statement of fact of Jesus' life. If someone wrote, "There are these people called Scientologists. They're just some cult that worshipped some dude named Xenu." You wouldn't conclude that Xenu existed from this writing no matter how much evidence of Scientologists you had... nor would you conclude Xenu to be real if it was written by a respected scholar. You'd evaluate the evidence honestly and conclude the obvious: in the case of Tacitus, he was just the first person in nearly 1900 year line to observe Christians and assume (without evidence) that there must have been a Christ.
    Tacitus actually bothers to mention some historical notes about Christ, namely that he was killed by the most extreme form of Roman punishment (crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of Pontius Pilate.

    He doing far more than mentioning that the Christians take their name from a guy named Christ, he is giving a date for when Christ lived, how he died, and under who's authority he was executed.

    The claims you make are not only unfounded, but not supported by historians.

    Your attempts to falsify Tacitus are nothing short than grasping at straws.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  3. #103
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Double Standards for Determining the Veracity of Holy Scripture

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    This is a side issue. And does not seek to prove any religion.

    I took issue with this quote from Zhavric...



    ...and am debating it's merit. This discussion may better existed in another thread.
    Ah, all right. Though the proof for Jesus is tenuous, the proof for the ancient Hebrew histories in the Bible is very poor, and the history of the church is violent and random in their acceptance of certain scripture's over others, at best.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  4. #104
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,209
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Double Standards for Determining the Veracity of Holy Scripture

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Ah, all right. Though the proof for Jesus is tenuous, the proof for the ancient Hebrew histories in the Bible is very poor, and the history of the church is violent and random in their acceptance of certain scripture's over others, at best.
    But I have it easy, I think in this debate, having set the bar rather lower then Zhavric. He claims there is NO evidence while I present some. I don't need to prove His existence but rather introduce evidence from early centuries that makes His historical existence a possibility.

    To make it NO evidence, he needs to cogently refute the evidence I presented, which I built using his own terms. I'll be satisfied with an agreement that Josephus provides grounds to an historic Jesus, while not proving it for certain.
    Last edited by Vandaler; May 16th, 2008 at 04:58 AM. Reason: cleaned up
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  5. #105
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,209
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Double Standards for Determining the Veracity of Holy Scripture

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Now, are you going to address the issue of Josephus' sources or are you going to continue evading that issue?
    I did not evade, I answered candidly that I don't know the sources of Josephus for those passages.

    Given your insistence, and how predictable my answer was, I would have expected that you where scripting me into some masterful trap. Why nothing in response ? Was the simple fact I raised the possibility of you laying the web of an appeal to ignorance make you think twice in pressing forward ?
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Basis of Atheist Morals
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 08:07 AM
  2. Sharia law in Afghanistan
    By Meng Bomin in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2006, 11:34 PM
  3. Double standards & Atheist minorities
    By GodlessSkept in forum General Debate
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: August 27th, 2004, 09:23 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •