Quote:
I concede that Flavius Josephus' account is controversial. I do not, however, admit that it is a complete forgery. From all appearances he was an honest-to-goodness Jewish historian co-opted for the Romans to document events for them. The question of the veracity of the details about Jesus, is, well, frankly, immaterial.
Oh, Totem. Poor, poor Totem.
Don't let your rabid religious views color your ability to correctly view the past. It makes you look less smart than what you are reputed to be-- and that could be quite damaging to the fearsome image you have fostered among the more easily quailed and intimidated among us.
You used to be someone I could count upon to have the balls to just say "Damnit I was wrong." Not make idiotic arguments when you know you've been wrong to try and save face.
Quote:
Why would that be you ask.
You ask for proof that Jesus was a person. I guess, Smasharoo, you want physical DNA, a set of dental imprints, voice print, retinal scan, and fingerprints before you accept that there was such an individual.
Nope, I'd accept the exact same level of evidence that historians accept to confirm the existance of any historical figure. It'd be nice for you if I was looking for an unreasonable level of proof, but I'm not. I'm looking for a very simple level of proof. A single record that's not an
obvious forgery to the point where even the most devout Christians admit it's unlikely to be valid.
Quote:
Based on that criteria I suppose it is not a stretch to say that there is no proof that anybody walked this earth prior to incontrovertable evidence. Even then, I suppose it is possible that the 1 in bajillion chance that DNA is a match for another person negates such evidence.
You know you're not ussually a petty ***** like this. This is what I'd expect of Gabji. Backpeadeling, changing what you've previously stated. It is because it's about the Christer Bunny? That saddens me, if your faith would make you a more petty defensive person. One would think it would be the opposite.
Indeed.
Quote:
How about the Gospels?
How about them? Have you looked into historically *when* they were written, by the way? I won't take you task, but I'd recomend that you give it a shot.
Quote:
Luke was a doctor. Matthew was a tax collector. Those two professions lend themselves to detailed observations. Mark, John, and Peter all attest to witnessing his life. Now I imagine that you'd object that no one can substantiate that they were actual people, but then Socrates, Aristole, Nero, Michalangelo, Da Vinci, and every other person who doesn't pass the test for authenticity was likely a collective figment of fevered imaginations dreamed up by a group of people bent on pushing their agenda.
Aside from the fact that for all of those people there's massive amounts of documentary evidence to their existance which is completely and utterly lacking in the case of Christ.
Quote:
I mean, really, how do you know the Sistene Chapel was painted by Michalangelo? Because someone said so? Bah! Can't be proven!
Were the only people who said so people who actively worshiped Michalangelo as a God, and were there Absolutely no documentary evidence of the man ever existing at all aside from the stories of his followers written many, many years after his death...
You'd have a point. You don't though.
Just say "Ok, I was wrong." Anything else makes it appear that not only your ability to argue, but your very integrity is just thrown out the window if the Christer Bunny is involved.
Quote:
I believe you once accused me of demanding that you prove a negative. This, in the same way, is demanding precisely that. There is nobody around who can offer the proof you insist upon.
No, proving a negative would be proving that Christ
didn't exist. That would be impossible. Which is great for you whacko's as regardless of how much evidence mounts that indicates %99.9999999999 that it's the case you can just ignore all of it.
See, provind that the Christer Bunny esxits would be very simple. I mean Herrod, Pilate, there's ample proof they existed. None for Christer Bunny though.
Quote:
Look at it this way. We can't agree on history that happened five minutes ago, much less 2,000 years in the past, so your threshold for veracity is an impossible standard.
No, it's not. It's in fact the verry minumum standard that one could ever accept. I like to call it the "Easter Bunny" test.
If there's not more proof of something that there is of the Easter Bunny existing then it's fairly unlikely that it's true. At least as unlikely as the Easter Bunny existing.
Christer Bunny doesn't past that test.
Every other historical figure does. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Just admit that you're wrong and I'll admit that you're religion is your buisness and you can believe whatever you like without being judged by the likes of Godless Commies like me and we'll move on.
I'd hate to have this destroy my oppinion of you as one of the few people on this board with any integrity at all.
