James Patrick Holding takes Ken Humphreys behind the woodshed Part II

[macroman52]

I assume Gamaliel is an histroical figure. I can't see the relevance of that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[UTubekookdetector]

MAC: Did you even listen to the debate above? Why do you see GAM as an historical figure? Do you believe the Iliad has been subject to massive interpolations and redaction? Why or why not?

[macroman52]

I have no opinion about Gamaliel. Does he appear in Mark, I thought not? So do the historical figures Herod and Pilate appear in Mark. So what? Mark's jesus before Pilate sounds suspisciously like, Jesus of Jerusalem before the Governor in Josphesus. jesus's entry to Jerusalem and the cleansing of the Temple, and the ressurection from the tomb, sound suspisciously like the story of Simon ben Giora also told by Josphesus. Just coincidences if Marks' Gospel was written before 70AD?

[UTubekookdetector]

MAC: You should give me an opinion on GAM, it seems you're dodging it. Your contrived argument of similarity has been used before concerning Genesis, the Gilgamesh Epic, et al. It's a simplistic & generalized appeal. If suspicion is all you have, that won't stand up in court, sorry.

[macroman52]

So JP, if the senneca letters were a pious fiction, never prentending to be true, couldn't Mark's gospel be exactly that? Mark's attempt to recontruct a life of jesus based on nothing but what he had from Paul (via revealation) and the old testament?

[UTubekookdetector]

MAC: It certainly *could* be, but you're merely asserting doubt. I would argue Mark's Gospel was around in oral form during the first generation after Christ and thus, not something that was highly redacted and evolved over time. I would argue it was in its final form <40 years after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Do you think Gamaliel was an historical fiction?

[ShinoCunning]

As for the Bible, in general, it's historical text. Only some of it is historical documentation in the strict sense. For example, Gospels are very similar to Greaco-Roman biography.

Getting back to Jesus, you claim that it could have been another figure? So, the Christians followed another man with such a name who was crucified under Pilate? Moreover, Tacitus is accounted for the origin of the movement's name.

[ShinoCunning]

Wow, seems you're spanking this kid worse than JP did Humphreys.

seonf, the point he is making is that you have made a methodological claim as your basis for denying historical evidence that is already on the table. He is showing you that your methodological claim would mean that the bulk of figures in antiquity don't exist. It's an argument by reductio ad absurdum. Your methodological claim is therefore false, leaving you without a basis for denying the evidence presented.

[seonf]

As for Tacitus' he just mentions the historical founder of Christianity. Christus is not Roman for Christ and he certainly doesn't say the word Jesus like some of the deceitful Christian apologists say (they put in Jesus) Christus a misspelling of Christ? Come on, do you have any evidence? Also Christus has other meanings as well. Christus was referred to as a freed slave or enlightened one.

[seonf]

But just because the Bible is biased it doesn't mean none of it ever happened. Fox news is biased about Bush and the republican party but that doesn't mean there was no 2008 election (actually it was pretty fair to Hillary so make that the 2004 Presidential election).

I believe the Bible offers proof that people believed Jesus was the son of God etc before the 2nd century AD. To me the gospels show what the early Christian's believe. But I would certainly not pass it of as historical evidence!

[seonf]

I am asking for evidence of Jesus. You are changing the subject. Who cares if some Greek guy existed or not?

[UTubekookdetector]

This is where you're getting yourself into trouble. Apply the same methodology to Zalmoxis. Did he exist or did he not exist considering the Josephus is the only man to write about him.

I'm not changing the subject at all, I'm asking you to apply the same reasoning to other historical figures.

Holding did the same thing to Ken during the debate concerning parts of the Talmud.

[seonf]

He existed. There is no evidence that those passages were tampered with. Why would anyone want to anyway? Regarding Jesus Josephus was a Orthodox Jew. That passage used language that he never would have used. Unless he was being ironic.

Face it from the "evidence" all we can know for sure is that Christianity had a founder who was executed by the Romans during the reign of Pontius Pilate and that Christians worshiped this leader as God. Oh and that they were in Rome during the reign of Neo.

[seonf]

grrr I mean Nero

[UTubekookdetector]

Well, that was the point of this debate wasn't it? To determine if a man named Jesus existed. And it seems you've agreed with that.

At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Ken doesn't, because Ken is a showman and an ideologue.

[seonf]

Yeah but none of the historians actually mention Jesus Christ. All we know is that Christianity had a historical founder. We can't really prove anything else.

Plus no one really mentions Jesus. Christus doesn't necessarily mean Christ. But yeah it's obvious it did have a historical founder.

[UTubekookdetector]

Did you follow the discussion between Holding and Ken over the common mispelling of "Christ" as "Christus."

Doesn't the Bible mention Jesus Christ? Oh, I forgot that doesn't count. When you apply your reasoning to other historical works, your argument falls apart and would discredit the Talmud, Livy's works, Pliny the Younger, etc.

You still haven't come up with a viable argument against Tacitus' mentioning of Christ.

Holding says the same thing I'm saying at the 2:50 mark.

[seonf]

Christian apologists always resort to these lame arguments. They never actually present the actual EVIDENCE we ask for.

[UTubekookdetector]

Sounds like you didn't watch the video. What evidence did Ken offer in this debate to specifically undercut Mr. Holding's point about Cornelius Tacitus?

[seonf]

I watched all 5 parts. The burden of providing evidence isnt on me or Ken. It is on you Christers to prove Jesus even existed. And pointing to other historical figures does not prove he existed.

[UTubekookdetector]

Doesn't sound like you watched it at all. You're using some of the same arguments Ken used. I could use the same arguments you used as other historical figures. Your argument is a non-starter.

Prove to me that Zalmoxis actually existed since Josephus is the only person in any historical record the mentions him.

Hint: You have to be consistent in your reasoning or your argument becomes invalid.

[seonf]

I don't have to prove anything and you can use those arguments if you want but you fail to provide any evidence that Jesus ever existed.

[UTubekookdetector]

Then I guess you've conceded Seon. Might want to check ouot freewebs..com/professor_enigma­/evidencesI.htm or some of the stuff Holding's written.

I would surmise that most of your arguments ironically fit within YouTube's character limit.

Now, if you have something specific to offer then post it... otherwise you need to quit wasting your time (which you have a lot of apparently) and mine.

[seonf]

um youre the one who hasn't replied to me youre the one who conceded Christer. I'm not going to look at anything until you give me EVIDENCE that's all I'm asking for, not lies about how I "conceded"

Now if YOU have something to post, post it. All I want is evidence. And of course they fit into the youtube character limit otherwise I wouldn't be able to post them, duh.

Face it religion is Bullshit. It is man's attempt at trying to find God and in the end we can't know which one is true.

[UTubekookdetector]

I mean your arguments are just woefully short, which they are.

Your precanned ham talking points might work at the tavern, but they won't work here.

I will ask you one more time: Did Zalmoxis exist? Why or why not?

P.S. You seem to get frustrated easily, you won't get far in life throwing a tantrum every time someone disagrees with you.

[seonf]

I get frustrated because every time I ask for evidence the Christers go of in a tangent about how there is more evidence for Jesus' existence then Julius Ceaser or use other apologist arguments. But they never provide EVIDENCE

And asking for evidence is a pretty short argument anyway. Plus I don;t like to bloviate.

[UTubekookdetector]

I will ask you one more time: Did Zalmoxis exist? Why or why not?

[seonf]

*sigh* I wouldn't classify the Bible as a historical document. Not in the sense that it offers definite proof of its claims but in the sense that it proves what early Christians believed about the historical founder of Christianity. I have been reading a few Christian books that have helped me develop faith recently but even they admit the Bible is biased.

[UTubekookdetector]

You still haven't given me an answer pertaining to Zalmoxis and I think it's because everyone will know how your parameters for proof change.

For example, how old are the oldest partial copies of Alexander the Great's biographies? Do you believe he existed?

So, I'll ask one more time, apply your same reasoning to Zalmoxis and tell me whether he existed or not and how you reached your conclusion.

Do you consider Livy's writings to be a "historical document"?