Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Falemon, anyone can filibuster if they want to. Only those concerned with the bottom line of who Jesus was, in the historical context of those who actually walked with him, will know to dismiss filibuster tactics. Those who care about commentators 2000 years later do so at their own peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Mention of a Jewish sect is not equal to mentioning Jesus. That's true, but then I'm not sure you understand the fundamental thesis that this absolutely critical, rational, video is pushing. There is no credible claim in all of history that relies upon one, single, individual. Christianity relies on the claim of one single individual called Paul. His private revelations and musings comprise a good bit of Christian theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Falemon, anyone can filibuster if they want to. Only those concerned with the bottom line of who Jesus was, in the historical context of those who actually walked with him, will know to dismiss filibuster tactics. Those who care about commentators 2000 years later do so at their own peril. Erm, what and your 1 hour videos and convoluted responses aren't? I was imitating you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And you've taken what I said out of context: I said this: ( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances; ( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked. So the question becomes, could Jesus' claims be checked by His peers? If so. . . then How did Jesus convince His peers (entire crowds) that He was performing numerous miracles? Pages upon pages of noise. . . but this single point remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Only those concerned with the bottom line of who Jesus was, in the historical context of those who actually walked with him, will know to dismiss filibuster tactics. Let's observe your logic: 1. Classification_A = People concerned with the bottom line of Jesus in the historical context 2. Classification_B = People who know to dismiss filibuster tactics 3. Premise_B = Belonging to Classification_A implies belonging to Classification_B Can you not see that this is flawed reasoning? How does Classification_A imply Classification_B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And you've taken what I said out of context: I said this: ( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances; ( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked. So the question becomes, could Jesus' claims be checked by His peers? If so. . . then How did Jesus convince His peers (entire crowds) that He was performing numerous miracles? Pages upon pages of noise. . . but this single point remains. You've missed out one key element. What actual evidence (proof even) do we have of peers witnessing Jesus' miracles? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernweh Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Falemon, anyone can filibuster if they want to. Stunning lack of self awareness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 in the historical context of those who actually walked with him, Unfortunately none of those people wrote anything down. The gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts; nothing in the new testament is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 That's an interesting conclusion (sciences sixth step). But what's your methodology for dating the biographies of Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 You understanding that skipping the first five steps of science and jumping straight to the sixth step is, by definition, dogma. . . correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteveBennett Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 But, most importantly, the main point: I was asked for a bottom line, a single sentence, to summarize everything I came here to say. The point the last couple of pages keep avoiding is this: ( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances; ( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked. I came here to address the rationalists, people who sincerely desire truth but who are not prepared to accept "truth" in some vague sense. To these thinkers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The point is that Many are assigning labels to what the last linked video said. but no one is showing their reasons for assigning those labels. They only associate the labels they give with prior experiences. I have not seen a single person assign any label to that linked video other than referring to it's length. Most of the labels people are using describe your behavior. You are not the video. Your behavior is not the video. We don't blame the video for your behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 SB: I'm learning a lot about you and your intentions by what you choose to ignore and respond to. That's an interesting conclusion (sciences sixth step). But what's your methodology for dating the biographies of Jesus? Not the illogical one that incorrectly does not understand how easy it is to fabricate those accounts AFTER the date. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Aren't you making an assumption that the Theraputae were Christians? You have no way of knowing if that was what Philo was taking about. With regard to miracles--- one way that I falsify them is that I have NEVER seen one. I then make a logical assumption that they did not occur in the past either---- but we're embellished stories. Further, during Jesus time a whole bunch of people were able to do miracles--- including Vespasian, Simon Magnus and many others. Either miracles were not from god--- or things were greatly exaggerated back in the day. I mean do you think Simon Mangus actually flew around. Bullshit! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 That's an interesting conclusion (sciences sixth step). But what's your methodology for dating the biographies of Jesus? What biographies of Jesus? There are none. The Harry Potter series are not biographies of Harry Potter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 That's an interesting conclusion (sciences sixth step). But what's your methodology for dating the biographies of Jesus? There has been plenty of scholarly research that concludes that the gospels were written decades after jesus alleged death. All of the works I have read are very well documented and referenced. A quick google search with keywords "when were the gospels written" would provide you with a wealth of sources that you could easily ignore in order to remain stubbornly adamant about the conclusion you have already drawn. Instead, you would prefer us to believe either that the gospels were written during jesus' life or that oral tradition is an accurate and reliable method of passing down information. Both of which are insanely ludicrous notions. Lastly, if the comment about drawing conclusions without performing the rest of the scientific method was directed at me, then I accuse you of projecting. I stated very early on that your main fallacy was having drawn your conclusion first and then looking for evidence that would confirm it. Since then, you've done nothing to demonstrate that I was in error on that point; in fact, you have doggedly proven me correct. Don't look for your own flaws in others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Your claim to appeal to "rational thinkers" is a terrible ploy that actually attracts people who want to be classed as rational thinkers. Learn the TRUTH instead of SteveBennett's lies about HISTORY. Jesus' claims can't actually be checked. Your logic is terribly FLAWED. You are not rational. You are not here to be rational, instead your intention is to deceive people. You are not writing for us, but for people who glance past the page. WE ARE NOT STUPID. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Aren't you making an assumption that the Theraputae were Christians? You have no way of knowing if that was what Philo was taking about. With regard to miracles--- one way that I falsify them is that I have NEVER seen one. I then make a logical assumption that they did not occur in the past either---- but we're embellished stories. Further, during Jesus time a whole bunch of people were able to do miracles--- including Vespasian, Simon Magnus and many others. Either miracles were not from god--- or things were greatly exaggerated back in the day. I mean do you think Simon Mangus actually flew around. Bullshit!Yeah, interestingly, the "pagan" opponents of Christians, whose works survive, tend to attribute Jesus' miracles to magic. The earliest of them is Celsus, writing in c. 177 CE - by which time, plenty of stories about Jesus had circulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true. .....Like an ancient book written by man and is supposedly the 'spoken voice' of god himself without 'him' showing any evidence except to speak through people's minds??? I could have been a better god than Yahweh...... The only Jesus is the Jesus one creates in their own mind apparently. Jesus, please appear to me now and speak to me. Nope nothing happened. As usual, the 'all powerful' Jesus doesnt do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Still, I find it amazing that we find ourselves so far away from the topic. I already gave the bottom line of everything I'm driving at. The bottom line is, every religion or cult in the entire world follows this pattern: ( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances; ( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked. The historical question becomes: Were the crowds who knew Jesus' in a position to directly verify Jesus works? Or not? Moar font! Moaaaar! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I still wanna know (per Steve on page 16) who's demanding that we don't watch Steve's hour-long videos. I'd also like to know how Steve imagines that reposting every video three or four times makes his case stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falemon Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I still wanna know (per Steve on page 16) who's demanding that we don't watch Steve's hour-long videos. I'd also like to know how Steve imagines that reposting every video three or four times makes his case stronger. He's speaking to the deconverting Christians viewing this thread. This thread is not targeting us, but instead he's using our website to capture Christians who are waking up to the fact that Christianity is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudhoney Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The point I would make is this: Look at how many counterpoints Pharisees or Atheists will go before they exhibit any sincerity in considering the fundamental point in case? They don't WANT you to consider the evidence. They don't WANT you to find your own way. They want to TELL you what the modern peers of Jesus saw (or didn't see). Who here watched the video? Who here has commented on it? Who here has is trying detract you from considering the historical truth? Ought you not to find such deviations patronizing? Even condescending? That such tactics would be used to pull you away from observing such an obvious truth as the video observes? Who are you talking to here to Steve? Who is the "you" in this rant? It’s not us… Are you teaching a Bible study class on how to debate Atheists? Can you not summarize the key points of the video for us instead of instructing us to watch it? You are nothing but a troll and I call bullshit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I still wanna know (per Steve on page 16) who's demanding that we don't watch Steve's hour-long videos. I'd also like to know how Steve imagines that reposting every video three or four times makes his case stronger. He's speaking to the deconverting Christians viewing this thread. This thread is not targeting us, but instead he's using our website to capture Christians who are waking up to the fact that Christianity is a lie. Well, I wish him good luck with that, then. It's still pretty creepy that after being here all this time and talking with so many of us, he still imagines that anybody here would have either the desire or the ability to "demand" that anybody, anywhere, not look at a video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 Personally, I think it's high time we stopped feeding this troll. I'm all for open-mindedness and fair play, but some people just need banning. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts