SethBrown wrote: He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it,
Stephen wrote: Yes I told you that. And that's called unreliable. As are you other "evidences" . Nnd not only that , you have to ask how old he was when he decided to write his commentaries. And, as already stated goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross. You obviously are not accepting that you don't have any proof and I have no intention of going around in circles with you.
SethBrown wrote: And he doesn't mention the resurrection,
Stephen wrote: Yes. I told you that too. which is exactly what your debate is questioning and you are pro aren't you?
So you have no evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross and no evidence that his rotten stinking three days old corpse rose from the dead ? Not a single living person witnessed Jesus' dead cold corpse rise from its cold stone slab.
Stephen wrote: First, you need to prove that Jesus died in the first place. Can you do that? If so lets see your proof?
SethBrown wrote: Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection.
Apart from the fact that Tacitus was born some 25 years after the crucifixion, to my knowledge doesn't even mention the resurrection. And if he did, this goes nowhere in proving Jesus had died on the cross, which was my question to you. And regardless of the authenticity of Testimonium Flavianum, this still goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross, either. So no points for you, I'm afraid.
However, you have mentioned Jewish Historian Josephus. In his works he relates to us that he came upon three friends that had been crucified and asked Titus if he could take them down: two died and one survived.
I am just totally baffled by the fact that Public- Choice is more than prepared to have OPEN discussions on any other of the sub forums about any subject on this site until it comes to the religion forum!? But instead wishes to hold any discussion on religion in private in the form of private messages!!!?
And after having the brass balls to accuse me of not being willing to have an "OPEN" discussion" with him!!!? #56 <<< THIS, Brother D. is right out of the Reverend Tradesecret book of hypocrisy and cowardly excuses not to engage.
Public-Choice wrote: If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Well you didn't take in all that I wrote, did you. LOOK>> "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?"#65
See that, I said >>" when it comes to the religion sub forum?" <<<<THAT was my whole point. You have no problem posting anywhere else but the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Then that is all you had to say to begin with then, isn't it? And there would be absolutely no need to have a conversation about you shying away and hiding from creating a thread in the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums.
Then I suppose this is where we end our exchanges. But I would have been interested to read your thread on how "IT" the bible, speaks for itself.
Public-Choice wrote: I am not trying to hide from anything. [.....................]I don't want to shy away over anything.#60
Well considering that is was you that has said that it is- "I" that doesn't wish to have an "open" discussion while flat out refusing yourself to have an "open" discussion on the forum, cannot be seen as nothing short of you clearly displaying that you are trying to hide and shy away.
Like I have said. You haven't seemed at all reluctant to post on any other sub forum openly on the whole of this site, yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?
You could always politely request that other members play an observational role in your thread and simply add their opinions via the thumbs up icon?
In the mean time I shall keep creating threads to the religion forum knowing too well that I have a free hand and will go unchallenged. And you will be welcome to add your opinions any time you feel the need. Which is the reason that a public and open forum exists in the first place.
Public-Choice wrote: "If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here".
You have only just accused me of not being willing to have a "OPEN" discussion! >> "Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't". #56
And now you want to hide away any discussion on the forums private messaging!? Hardly open , is it?
Public-Choice wrote: The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.
Imo there is no better place to have an "OPEN" honest discussion. And the PM system here is terrible. From my own experience, one only has to hit the space bar and the message is sent before a sentence or paragraph is completed.
And I always take into account and consideration other members views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs. It would be silly, not to mention ignorant of me not to. But does this mean I shouldn't question and or counter with my own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs? This, to me at least, are how arguments that come up for discussion are discussed, debated and at times resolved.
You have created many threads for instance in the politics forum I notice. Why is that? You don't have a problem OPENLY discussing your own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs on those boards, what is different about the open religion forum?
Public-Choice wrote: Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You don't need to. But you have claimed something interesting saying : " I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself."
I believe it would make a very interesting thread.
Public-Choice wrote: "You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now...". Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't",
Stop it. I have had very cordial and open dialogue on that the thread - Original Sin. If I didn't want an open discussion concerning my own beliefs I wouldn't even be on a religion forum on the WWW discussing them.
Public-Choice wrote: "I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be".
Gallieo Gallei was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. I would have loved to have discussed many thing with him, as would have Jesus.. And I don't believe the earth to be flat either. Doesn't the OT tell us all those years ago that the Earth was round? Marvellous for the time don't you think?
Public-Choice wrote: " I don't know who hurt you"
You are assuming quite a lot about me and getting rather personal.
Public-Choice wrote: "Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging".
I look forward then to your thread on how "IT" the bible speaks for itself, on the open forum.
Public-Choice wrote: "It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself".
Good then start a thread about it. You should have no problem explaining to me and others exactly how "IT" speaks for itself? I look forward to it with great interest,
considering that you have only ever created one in the religion forum. One out of some 40 total threads since the 18 months that you have been here, claiming Catholicism is a cult.
Public-Choice wrote: "your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge".
Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now and dispute anything that I have stated and why you believe my opinions are incorrect. Here you go> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
I reference the bible many times in all of my threads in the religion forum . Indeed all of my threads to do with scripture are full of references from the BIBLE itself. In that particular thread- Original Sin -the BIBLE and or a BIBLICAL character or author is referenced by me in every post I have written.
Indeed, all of my threads in the religion forum concerning the BIBLE are all threads asking questions about the BIBLE. I could hardly question the BIBLE without referencing the BIBLE, could I?
Public-Choice wrote: " Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this".
Try reading this thread. You may learn something.>>>>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture, and that will be because you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests leaving you to make it all up as you go when challenged on your beliefs .
If you are going to insist on interpreting and preaching scripture, you should at least pick up the bible and read it!
I find it hard to understand why Christians can't accept that their god/Jesus must have destroyed/ murdered thousands of foetuses during the flood. Or in the many battles where again their god/Jesus ordered the deaths of "everything that breaths" which also must have included foetuses.
I have said many times, that this is the result of Christians adopting a god they don't understand, from a time they don't understand and a culture they don't understand. << This is their baby and they have to rock it. This is the rod they made for their own backs and the burden they have to carry and all through their own ignorance of all the above.
Not to my likening at all but as it has been pointed by the biblical god and if god murders "children in the womb" it appears all is well and above board .
Didn't take long for "thou shalt not kill" to go flying out the window, did it?
SethBrown wrote: He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it,
Stephen wrote: Yes I told you that. And that's called unreliable. As are you other "evidences" . Nnd not only that , you have to ask how old he was when he decided to write his commentaries. And, as already stated goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross. You obviously are not accepting that you don't have any proof and I have no intention of going around in circles with you.
SethBrown wrote: And he doesn't mention the resurrection,
Stephen wrote: Yes. I told you that too. which is exactly what your debate is questioning and you are pro aren't you?
So you have no evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross and no evidence that his rotten stinking three days old corpse rose from the dead ? Not a single living person witnessed Jesus' dead cold corpse rise from its cold stone slab.
Stephen wrote: First, you need to prove that Jesus died in the first place. Can you do that? If so lets see your proof?
SethBrown wrote: Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection.
Apart from the fact that Tacitus was born some 25 years after the crucifixion, to my knowledge doesn't even mention the resurrection. And if he did, this goes nowhere in proving Jesus had died on the cross, which was my question to you. And regardless of the authenticity of Testimonium Flavianum, this still goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross, either. So no points for you, I'm afraid.
However, you have mentioned Jewish Historian Josephus. In his works he relates to us that he came upon three friends that had been crucified and asked Titus if he could take them down: two died and one survived.
First, you need to prove that Jesus died in the first place. Can you do that? If so lets see your proof.
I am just totally baffled by the fact that Public- Choice is more than prepared to have OPEN discussions on any other of the sub forums about any subject on this site until it comes to the religion forum!? But instead wishes to hold any discussion on religion in private in the form of private messages!!!?
And after having the brass balls to accuse me of not being willing to have an "OPEN" discussion" with him!!!? #56 <<< THIS, Brother D. is right out of the Reverend Tradesecret book of hypocrisy and cowardly excuses not to engage.
Public-Choice wrote: If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Well you didn't take in all that I wrote, did you. LOOK>> "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?"#65
See that, I said >>" when it comes to the religion sub forum?" <<<<THAT was my whole point. You have no problem posting anywhere else but the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Then that is all you had to say to begin with then, isn't it? And there would be absolutely no need to have a conversation about you shying away and hiding from creating a thread in the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums.
Then I suppose this is where we end our exchanges. But I would have been interested to read your thread on how "IT" the bible, speaks for itself.
Public-Choice wrote: I am not trying to hide from anything. [.....................]I don't want to shy away over anything.#60
Well considering that is was you that has said that it is- "I" that doesn't wish to have an "open" discussion while flat out refusing yourself to have an "open" discussion on the forum, cannot be seen as nothing short of you clearly displaying that you are trying to hide and shy away.
Like I have said. You haven't seemed at all reluctant to post on any other sub forum openly on the whole of this site, yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?
You could always politely request that other members play an observational role in your thread and simply add their opinions via the thumbs up icon?
In the mean time I shall keep creating threads to the religion forum knowing too well that I have a free hand and will go unchallenged. And you will be welcome to add your opinions any time you feel the need. Which is the reason that a public and open forum exists in the first place.
Public-Choice wrote: "If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here".
You have only just accused me of not being willing to have a "OPEN" discussion! >> "Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't". #56
And now you want to hide away any discussion on the forums private messaging!? Hardly open , is it?
Public-Choice wrote: The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.
Imo there is no better place to have an "OPEN" honest discussion. And the PM system here is terrible. From my own experience, one only has to hit the space bar and the message is sent before a sentence or paragraph is completed.
And I always take into account and consideration other members views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs. It would be silly, not to mention ignorant of me not to. But does this mean I shouldn't question and or counter with my own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs? This, to me at least, are how arguments that come up for discussion are discussed, debated and at times resolved.
You have created many threads for instance in the politics forum I notice. Why is that? You don't have a problem OPENLY discussing your own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs on those boards, what is different about the open religion forum?
Public-Choice wrote: Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You don't need to. But you have claimed something interesting saying : " I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself."
I believe it would make a very interesting thread.
Public-Choice wrote: "You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now...". Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't",
Stop it. I have had very cordial and open dialogue on that the thread - Original Sin. If I didn't want an open discussion concerning my own beliefs I wouldn't even be on a religion forum on the WWW discussing them.
Public-Choice wrote: "I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be".
Gallieo Gallei was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. I would have loved to have discussed many thing with him, as would have Jesus.. And I don't believe the earth to be flat either. Doesn't the OT tell us all those years ago that the Earth was round? Marvellous for the time don't you think?
Public-Choice wrote: " I don't know who hurt you"
You are assuming quite a lot about me and getting rather personal.
Public-Choice wrote: "Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging".
I look forward then to your thread on how "IT" the bible speaks for itself, on the open forum.
Public-Choice wrote: "It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself".
Good then start a thread about it. You should have no problem explaining to me and others exactly how "IT" speaks for itself? I look forward to it with great interest,
considering that you have only ever created one in the religion forum. One out of some 40 total threads since the 18 months that you have been here, claiming Catholicism is a cult.
Public-Choice wrote: "your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge".
Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now and dispute anything that I have stated and why you believe my opinions are incorrect. Here you go> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
I reference the bible many times in all of my threads in the religion forum . Indeed all of my threads to do with scripture are full of references from the BIBLE itself. In that particular thread- Original Sin -the BIBLE and or a BIBLICAL character or author is referenced by me in every post I have written.
Indeed, all of my threads in the religion forum concerning the BIBLE are all threads asking questions about the BIBLE. I could hardly question the BIBLE without referencing the BIBLE, could I?
Public-Choice wrote: " Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this".
Try reading this thread. You may learn something.>>>>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture, and that will be because you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests leaving you to make it all up as you go when challenged on your beliefs .
If you are going to insist on interpreting and preaching scripture, you should at least pick up the bible and read it!
No. White male. English. C of E but not practicing.
I find it hard to understand why Christians can't accept that their god/Jesus must have destroyed/ murdered thousands of foetuses during the flood. Or in the many battles where again their god/Jesus ordered the deaths of "everything that breaths" which also must have included foetuses.
I have said many times, that this is the result of Christians adopting a god they don't understand, from a time they don't understand and a culture they don't understand. << This is their baby and they have to rock it. This is the rod they made for their own backs and the burden they have to carry and all through their own ignorance of all the above.
Not to my likening at all but as it has been pointed by the biblical god and if god murders "children in the womb" it appears all is well and above board .
Didn't take long for "thou shalt not kill" to go flying out the window, did it?