{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/4/2015 7:31:00 PM
17
Don't need to. Positive claims have the burden of proof. Else we'd live in anarchy. Watch, I need donations to save you from the invisible space men kidnapping people and harvesting their brains. Well, that's quite a claim. But you can't prove me wrong, sooooo better to be safe right?
English
-
You can't deny that he existed. There is more than sufficient evidence.
-
Well, yes, I can. And please, give a citation for your claim. I have no issue with the idea of a delusional wandering rabbi of ancient times, but the story you have has gone through countless editing, translations, and transliterations. If there were such a man, you have virtually no idea what he would've been like. Or what his life entailed. Also, to ignore my first post and just say I can't say that gives absolutely no argument, and exposes your close-mindedness. You have every right to believe what you do, but you don't have the right to believe there is non-biased factual evidence backing your faith, ESPECIALLY if you don't even give a reference or citation as to where you read that. I feel like this is the first time someone explained this to you.
-
All I said was that Jesus existed. I didn't say anything about the Bible. Sounds like you made an assumption.
-
And where did you get the idea of Jesus? Also thanks for ignoring the citation part it tickles me ;)
-
Tacitus
-
No, he claimed there were a vast multitude of Christians executed around 64 CE. At most they would've been a majority in Judea, not a massive group in Rome, and no evidence of such a massacre exists. Also never mentions Jesus, and Messianic Jews were not yet called Christians or Christae or whatever the name was, I forgot. Even Christians say Tacitus' Annals are flawed and give no supporting evidence. Try again? This is fun.
-
Have you even read Annals? He mentions the name "Christus" specifically. But since Tacitus isn't your bag, let's move on. Josephus.
-
The vast majority of scholars since the 1800's have agreed the passage was not from Josephus. The. Freaking. 1800's. You're now 200 years behind in your own argument.
-
Christus, meaning leader, anointed one. Not Jesus of Nazareth. And really, you're just handing these to me. Josephus' account has been proven a forgery time and again, and I'm honestly surprised you heard about him before you heard about his forgery. Please look up an unbiased source before setting yourself up for failure.
-
You're taking Tacitus out of context. Yes, Christus can mean "leader", but in context, it is clearly referring to Jesus. On to Josephus, you are correct that the authenticity of his account is debated, but the reference to Jesus in Book 20, Chapter 9 is considered authentic by almost all scholars.
-
Yet no other writing from Tacitus attests to him and he doesn't say Jesus in the one example you have. And there is a staggering majority that suspect interpolation in the account of James. Not to mention Josephus claims he was stoned to death while Hegesippus claims we was thrown off the roof of a temple. And if these small tidbits from paragraphs written by, not even a handful, of long-dead men are the only evidence you can procure for what was apparently a friggin real life Fonz that broke the laws of nature for people to see, what does that tell you?
-
[quote]And if these small tidbits from paragraphs written by, not even a handful, of long-dead men are the only evidence you can procure for what was [b]apparently a friggin real life Fonz that broke the laws of nature for people to see[/b], what does that tell you?[/quote] I never said anything about Jesus' supposed divinity.
-
Fine, a delusional traveling rabbi that martyred himself then. Still would have picked up a lot more press, although granted not as much.
-
Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder.
-
Sounds like you're getting evasive. It was just a point. But I take it the actual debate is over since you've sunk towards personal assumptions.
-
You began the "debate" with an assumption.
-
No, actually I said I didn't need to debate you since you have the burden of proof. You countered with, you can't say that. You do realize I can go back and read these...
