10/15/2012 6:51pm, #81"We often joke -- and we really wish it were a joke -- that you will only encounter two basic problems with your 'self-defense' training.
1) That it doesn't work
2) That it does work"
10/15/2012 6:53pm, #82
My position stated clearly,
I haven't seen compelling evidence to support a claim of a historical Jesus.
The claim is about the lack of evidence not the lack of Jesus.
The Ann Frank thing is exactly what I am talking about it is a contemporary account of what happened. On top of that it is one of many, it can be corroborated with other documents.
10/15/2012 6:59pm, #83
That's ALL you took out of that example?
The writers use the term "Apologists" throughout what little I skimmed. That's an Ad Hom Fallacy. There may be some legit stuff in there, but I'm not going to be bothered reading an obviously slanted article.
Yes, in most cases the term apologists is derisive.
The following is a list of common evidence provided by apologists in an attempt to provide historical evidence for Jesus. It is generally evidence for the existence of early Christianity, and none is evidence for Jesus per se. The writers were also born after the Crucifixion and so cannot have been eyewitnesses to Jesus.
10/15/2012 7:06pm, #84
Have fun with the reading.
Short version is, people tend to assume that the Bible's Jesus is based on an historical figure because of the quantity of sources, and because, among other elements, the reports of direct speech.
On a purely archaeological base, there has been no proof for the existence of that Jesus-like figure so far, but the core story of the New Testament - the crucifiction - is generally regarded as fairly likely, because exact dates and names are given, and because, frankly, apart from the religious implications, it's simply very likely: In the Ancient Roman empire, the Roman practice of basic religious tolerance created friction especially with the monotheism-oriented people from the Middle East. So, there are historical accounts on executions like that, and there are historical accounts on Messianic sects in Ancient Israel spawning by the dozen. That means, a story like the one told in the New Testament could have happened, in principle.
Now, the core of the debate centers around one specific aspect: Was there a single Proto-Jesus, meaning that the different sources refer to one singular event, or rather, are the many sources reporting sort of the tale of a consensus messiah, meaning the many tales of messiah-like figures essentially got collected in one big one.
Personally, I keep my religious beliefs somewhere between Voltaire and Marx: For Western philosophy, the historical existence would be very convenient, if not much else. And, frankly, while I find myself incapable to believe, I think Christianity is a hell of a lot better than most of the other **** out there.
10/15/2012 7:13pm, #85
I am not using them as evidence. Its the counter to the implicit
Well no **** their is no evidence cause it happened a long time ago and they didn't have printing presses and servers and databases and stuff.
Yes some information is going to be lost, heck a lot.
10/15/2012 7:23pm, #86
critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography.
I take issue with this as a form of evidence.
10/15/2012 7:40pm, #87
10/15/2012 7:50pm, #88
How can you read all of these posts and consistently misconstrue everything? It is rather shocking.
Define what you mean by "historical person."
10/15/2012 7:54pm, #89
10/15/2012 8:05pm, #90
Upon further delving, I am noticing to me a surprising use of Oral tradition amongst Jews in the Talmud. This may explain the use of an Oral Tradition as opposed to a written one in early Christianity till codified later. It is interesting to me that a highly literate group of people would carry on an Oral Tradition.