What type of cross was Jesus of Nazareth most likely crucified on?
It is commonly accepted that a sign stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was affixed above him, so this seems to discredit the idea that it was a tau crucifix (pic related)
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim he was crucified on a crux simplex, or just a simple stake. The Orthodox Church asserts that a bar was placed beneath his feat so as to support his weight (which is where the Three Barred Cross comes from)
So which is most likely?
No cross at all. He wasn't real.
>>325383
>inb4 shitstorm
There is plenty of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Whether or not he was the Christ and his miracles are real are not relevant to this discussion.
>>325373
Why do the Orthodox think there was steps and the Catholics don't?
>>325395
>There is plenty of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>A couple of historians mention him
>They were all born after he died
>This is what passes for evidence in the humanities
The taxes of working people pay the education of these subhumans
>>325395
There's a small handful of historical evidence of questionable quality due to Christian tampering, a lack of clear sources for non-contemporaries and a lack of clear reference to anything but Christians.
It becomes more likely that a historical Jesus existed but only if you get sufficiently far away from the biblical depiction of Jesus and start to arrive at "Man who founded what would become Christianity and was possibly crucified for it".
>>325373
None because there is really no standard of crucifixion and it all boils down on
1) How lazy the guys doing it are or
2) How sadist they are.
Josephus says some of the Jewish Prisoners rome captured during the revolt were nailed on squarish frames and one dude was crucified with an excess number of nails (he died of it thankfully enough)
>>325685
But historians are not talking about a literal son of God when they say Jesus existed, they think he was probably an apocalyptic Jewish preacher.
>>325779
Not him, but you surely need more than that for it to count. You probably had dozens of apocalyptic preachers in Jerusalem alone, surely you need that figure to at least be the center of the nascent Christianity and possibly the crucifixion for it to count.
>>325373
The Orthodox cross is more metaphorical of the two thieves on either side of Jesus rather than supposed to be historically accurate.
>There's countless records of the activities of Mormons and Joseph Smith recorded by the US government during Smith's lifetime.
>There's literally no record of the activities of Christians and Jesus recording by the Roman Empire during Jesus' lifetime.
Weren't the Romans supposed to be good at keeping records?
>>325885
> HAY GUYZ WHY DON'T WE JUST GO LOOK AT THE ROMAN RECORDS!?!?!
Because they didn't survive for 2000 years, dipshit.
>On historical Jesus
Paul, James, and Mark, all date from 50 to 70 and up to 90.
Jesus died in 30 - 35
Temple destroyed and war between Jews and Romans around 65 and 70 AD
Nero died in 68AD? And he was persecuting Christians before this date.
It would make sense if they tried to get rid of evidence for someone as controversial as Jesus.
>>325373
>So which is most likely?
there was no cross
the cross is a metaphore for the non existance of jesus
Serious question:
Do you guys believe that Christ and the story of his crucifixion is an actual historical event?
>>326092
Yes
>>326092
No.
Not unless you further define "story of his crucifixion".
If you define it as "He was crucified" then I'd hazard a maybe.
>>326092
No.
>>325670
Paul's epistles are almost universally deemed as authentic historical and they mention Jesus numerous times.
>>326178
Only 7 of them are deemed to have been written by the same author, who may as well be called Paul.
However Paul never met Jesus and all his knowledge comes to him secondhand at best through the church.
>>326092
It's as historical as the trial of Socrates or the meetings of Alexander and Diogenes are historical. We'd like to believe every detail to be true, but can we really be sure?
>>326092
If by story of his crucifiction you mean: there was a preacher dude called Christ, and he got crucified.
Then yes.
>>325885
>Record keeping technology from 2000 years ago vs. 200 years ago.
Hmmmm
OP the unfortunate answer is that no one knows if any of this even happened, let alone any of the finer details.
You can spend years and years researching and debating what shape this guy died on but you will never be any closer to the answer than you are now.
Seriously no one knows and no one even CAN know. Anyone who implies they have answers to questions like these are being dishonest with you.
>>326092
No one knows. There's a chance it happened (as in, a man was religious and crucified) but the evidence is pretty sparse and no contemporaries who witnessed this event wrote about it. Only other people with pretty specific agendas many many years later.
No one knows the facts of any of this stuff
>>325373
asking this is like asking how many times julius caeser shat in his life.
its not possible at this stage to know, theres no clues either way
personally i would be very surprised if any of the jesus christ myth holds much historical weight whatsoever
>>326092
I think it's reasonable to assume that if there was such a non-citizen rabble-rouser in roman territory that was called (even by few) a king of a troublesome people, then crucifixion was possible.
The fact that the figure of Christ is firmly cemented in the writings of early Christians seems to suggest that such a man existed, in some form. People trying to claim that he was entirely made up by the early Christians deeply misunderstand the world of that time – people in cities and trade hubs (where the majority of early Christians seemingly came from) were well connected and informed. Simply making up a claimed living god, placing him in a relatively small, connected, and infamously troublesome province, then falsely tying his end in to the highly bureaucratic governance would have been nigh impossible to convincingly pull off.
There are many figures that are attested only by vague and contradictory references in classical texts, arguably less evidenced than Christ, who are (reasonably) accepted to have existed just based on those few mentions. If Christ had not become such a huge factor in western history, there would be little argument over his existence – but because he is such an unknown figure relative to his influence, contrarians can't help but argue against the existence of any full prototype for the man, even though they accept less important figures on far more nebulous grounds.
Most people saying "jesus didnt real" come across to me as edgelords who think that the way to disprove Christianity is to deny Christ existed, as if his person was the weakest pillar upon which the religion was built.
This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to disbelieve that he existed as per the "canon" narrative – just that it's not ludicrous to believe that the person existed in the first place. There are also some good arguments as to why he didn't exist, too, but none so convincing as to make the assumption that he did exist readily dismissible.
There isn't a single actual historian who promotes Jesus mythicism. It's a non-academic position.
>>326338
I don't give a fuck about trying to dismantle christianity or anything like that but it is just an objective fact that we don't have any records from anyone who even briefly met this man
coupled with the outright impossible stories about his life it surely wouldn't leave you "mindblown" if it was somehow proven that he didn't actually exist
>>326338
As opposed to say, the entire Gospel of Mark, which is ridiculously wrong about almost every aspect of Judean life, yet thousands if not millions of early Christians took as well, gospel truth as to how things worked.
If you're basing your belief on the fact that ancient people would have known better and called bullshit, then how come bullshit didn't get called on lots of unbelievable social phenomena in the NT? I'm not talking the miracles, I'm talking stuff like how Paul claims to have been a pharisee, yet all of his friends and official supporters in Acts are Sadducees, and he always quotes from a Septuagint bible, even when it makes translation errors?
>>326338
>The fact that the figure of Christ is firmly cemented in the writings of early Christians seems to suggest that such a man existed
Which writings are you referring to? I thought the early Christian writings appeared decades, even centuries after Christ was crucified.
---
The one issue I have with the narrative of Christ is this:
If there were such a crucifixion, of a man who was perceived as being the "King of the Jews", regardless of whether or not he was supernatural, you would think that there would be some record of the event, some document, some tablet discussing the brutal demonizing and killing of a man who was widely known in the province of Judaea.
I mean, the provincial governor/Prefect Pontius Pilate basically ordered his death. How is there no surviving record of this, yet we have multiple records of such base, meaningless events, events that pale in comparison to the very public crucifixion of Christ?
>>326368
I would not be surprised at all if the man Jesus Christ, founder of Christianity &c &c.. did not exist in such a form. My mind would not be blown if he was shown to have not been entirely historical, and yours shouldn't be blown if it was somehow proven that he did exist. It would certainly be quite unusual, however, if there never was a man or men for the character to be based on in the first place.
As for the outrageous stories, what in my post makes you think I accept those as historic fact?
There are almost no accounts of Alexander III of Macedon from people who knew him, or even from people who spoke to those that knew him. It is an objective fact that primary source historiography on Alexander the Great is nonexistent, there are only lost works which we know about through later reference. There are even outrageous claims such as him building a great wall of adamant across the Caucasus. These things do not in any way serve to disprove his historical existence, though. Please don't take this as an analogy to "prove" Christ's existence, just to demonstrate the unfortunate implications of your argument.
>>326357
The problem with it is that there really is almost nothing to go on – nothing to prove he existed, and nothing to prove he didn't exist. It's a non-topic exclusively reserved for Christian apologists and militant atheists, and bored self-proclaimed historians on the internet like us.
>>326368
But we have enough historical evidence to satisfy the notion that he existed, more than for some other historical personages actually, and more than enough relatively speaking for a person of his (un)importance at the time (a not completely unknown preacher).
I sure wouldn't be mindblown if it was proven he did not exist - but going by the standards of historical research there is basically no particularly strong basis for doubting the basics of Jesus existing.
>>326254
> many many years later
20 to 30 years is not really that many.
>and no contemporaries who witnessed this event wrote about it
Erm... Gospel of John?
>>326254
Arguable. Church tradition claims that the Gospel of John was written by the John who followed Jesus. Mind you, he would have been 80-90 years old, and this would have been a remarkably old age. This is very improbable but not at all impossible and is helped by the possible availability of powerful antibiotics (a beer native to Ethiopia that contained tetracycline and would have cropped up periodically). Assuming this is true, we do have one account written by an eyewitness that corroborates the details of the other accounts, which claim to be second hand.
There have been claims that the Gospel of John was not written by John the disciple and instead was written by a student of his or a student of his student. However, these claims are built around the statement that John couldn't have lived to 80 or 90 and are, to my knowledge, corroborated only by a relatively low average lifespan, a weak inference. It is a denial of a premise based on prior assumption that the premise isn't true.
>>326552
We can hardly claim that contemporary accounts are needed to accept that the existence of some Christ was possible, then turn around and say that the acceptance and attitudes of his contemporaries are not to be trusted. If pressed, I would say that Paul preached to Greeks and Romans, who might not have been able to identify those things.
As a (crap) analogy, an American might be expected to know that El Chapo escaped from Mexican prison but not understand nuances of Mexican politics and culture.
>>326565
The Gospel of Mark, which the anon above referred to, is considered to have been composed originally around 70 AD. If the character of Christ arose after the initial spread of para-Christian sects, then when it was written there would have been many "Christians" who had entered into the religion before the man was invented.
As for the second, if Christ actually existed, he would only have been one of many messiahs that cropped up at the time. Even Christians accept that he was not unique in that sense, he even interacts with two other contemporary messiah-figures in the canon, John the Baptist (a messiah in the Christian sense) and Barabbas (a messiah in the Judean sense). Both of these men, if historical, would have been a source of considerable, if not unique, trouble for the Romans.
If there is any truth to the biblical account, Christ would likely have been a rather insignificant troublemaker from the Roman perspective, if not from the Judean perspective, since he doesn't appear to have been particularly successful in his lifetime or to have advocated significant resistance to Roman governance. There are even some conspiracy-style theories that he was a Roman agent sent to preach submission and to provoke the local Judean authorities.
Even so, the lack of contemporary documentation is still suspect. If any anons can provide insight to the frequency of crucifixions at the time, it might help. I think it was quite common, but I can't back that up.
>>326720
>It is simply retarded to think there would be official roman records of someone crucified under a prelate whose image was that of a harsh dictator.
Wha? Explain?
>>326552
>As opposed to say, the entire Gospel of Mark, which is ridiculously wrong about almost every aspect of Judean life
Oh? Which mistakes did he do? Please enlighten me.
>>326679
This is probably a topic for another thread, but how have we arrived at these different estimates for average age in different periods/cultures? Burial analysis? Written ages in documents? Otherwise, for example, if the Romans recorded an average age, wouldn't it be pulled down by decades because of infant mortality rates?
>>326772
You can date writing styles to within a 50 year period. Words would have been spelt differently or used differently.
So even if we have 5th century document we can tell it is copied from a 1st centuary version. We can even discover alterations or copy errors the scribes made. As for the presence of them, there is a lot of them over time the number of times Jesus is referred to as "son of God" increases.
>>326735
He is saying that it would be foolish to expects records of one particular crucifixion to survive to this day, especially as that crucifixion was carried under the reign of a harsh dictator, presumably one who would have ordered many of these, and in addition to the above, the poster juxtaposes this entire notion with the fact that clear evidence for the existence of the Pilate has only relatively recently been discovered, further underlining the importance of context when dealing with the amount of historical evidence and the intricacies of historical research in general.
>>326794
no, no I'm asking about average human age
>>326092
>No evidence
>Clouded in mysticism
>Linked with paranormal activity
I respect a person who believes in aylmaos and frequents /x/ more than a history major without an inch of common sense and objective thought that claims it happened based on a consensus which is a fallacy of appeal to authority.
>>326735
There are no roman records of Pontius Pilate himself. The first known record of his name is found in a family tree from around 130 AD. Pontius Pilate was appointed to the province of Judea and handled the task poorly. His undiplomatic and harsh behaviour most likely led to his demotion and he was forced to live his life in the countryside. The NT depicts the crucification of Jesus as mainly the work of the jewish snyhedrion. However, from what we know it would have been impossible for them to pass out any kind of death penality as it wasn't in their jurisdiction. The consensus in modern theology is that Pilate ordered the death of Jesus and the depiction of the Jews as the bad guys in the NT was a means of early Christians to not appear critical of the Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone
>>326733
> If pressed, I would say that Paul preached to Greeks and Romans, who might not have been able to identify those things.
Oh, and I don't doubt it; but remember, Paul is claiming to be an expert Pharisee pre-conversion. He ought ot know better, even if his audience doesn't, and the fact that he makes mistakes like that which his audience doesn't pick up on is rather telling.
To extend your analogy, it's more like if archeologists 500 years from now after a nuclear war find a speech transcript of an Mexican emigre talking to Texans about El Chapo.
And butting into another line of discussion, I heard an interesting theory here the other day, with several citations that I don't entirely remember, positing that Barabbas and Jesus were the same person, and the divide was a post Jewish revolt artifact to try to separate themselves from "The Jews".
What I mostly remembered is that "Barabbas" is Aramaic for "Son of the Father"; and its dumps an awful lot of weight on poor coincidence to assume there were two people in Pilate's prison at the same time calling themselves by that moniker.
>>326761
Literally his second verse misquotes the Old Testament. He attributes to Jesus a formation of "Moses gave the law" as opposed to "God gave the law" which would be the default formation for any Judean, who would know that Moses was a spokesperson, not the source of the Law. He has Jesus going to Sidon on his trip from Tyre to the Galilee. Look it up on a map, Sidon is further north than Tyre, so apparently Jesus went north to go southeast. He has the "Pharisees" getting mad at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, despite the fact that said position was a Sadducee one. He has the onlookers to "Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachtani" (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) think that he's invoking Elijah; the formation similarities between "God" and "Elijah" exist in Hebrew (Eli/Eli) and not Aramaic (Eloi/Elya). He implies that women can initiatie divorce by separating Jesus's prohibition of divorce into two seperate verses and prohibitions (10:11-12). And the trial before the "Sanhedrin" has a whole lot of problems, it being at night, them striking Jesus, the unanimous verdict, being tried on a holiday, in Ciaphas's house, etc. Not even a single word to demonstrate this was something out of the ordinary.
>>326869
The "character" Jesus from the bible was executed with common criminals. Common criminals were beheaded, not crucified. The whole premise that the Romans held an impromptu court in Jerusalem, rather than Caesarea, the administrative center where the courts were active and then sentenced a mixed bag of criminals and a tax disrupter, is just silly.
>>326974
Why would they make up a story about Jesus being crucified? Why add such a humilating and weak end to their heroes life? Or do you think the information was just transmitted really poorly?
>>327022
Christian persecution complex has deep psychological roots.
Why do students flagellate and declare themselves victims of every travesty on university campuses today?
There's your answer.
>>327041
You seem to forget that during the first centuries of christianity, the cross was a sign of great shame, and actually used to taunt christians.
It came to be accepted as a symbol of christianity much later.
>>325933
Thats only a 20 to 40 year gap. Would make sense why they probably burned all that information in that war along with precious gnostic texts
>>327055
You realize this post doesn't contradict what I said at all, right?
>>327041
C.S. Lewis addressed that point quite clearly in Mere Christianity
>>327071
Except the first christians were pretty much of the opinion that if everyone else forgot that shameful event, it would have been better.
>>326904
Do the other gospels stay consistent with what we know to be true about Judean life? Why would there be so many inconsistencies in Mark? That's interesting to hear.
>>327117
Can I get a source on this?
>>326904
Mark's first language was most likely Greek. But he consistently used Aramaic the right way. However, his intended audience was of greek and pagan nature, thus he translated most of those terms or used the Septuaginta version.
His long depiction of the mosaic laws most likely appeals to greek speaking Jews, which also seems to be his own background. Seeing that you lump all Jews together and expect me to swallow that they are a unified demographic with a singular culture is just an insult. Eli/Eloi? Really? He quoted a Psalm, you mongrel.
As for Mark 10, 12
>Who is the whore Herodias?
The Synhedron is supposed to be the bad guy in the story.
>>327179
They are better, especially Matthew. At least my personal theory has always been that Matthew wasn't trying to write a complementary Gospel, but rather to replace Mark with his own.He copies a lot of Mark's text word for word until you hit a factual error like that, at which point he changes stuff.
>Why would there be so many inconsistencies in Mark?
Most likely explanation is that Mark the Gospel was written at around the same time we have the earliest manuscripts of it, 70 or so, in the places where we found the first manuscripts, I.E. a long way away from Judea. Christianity had already become a movement that had significant non-Jewish elements, and Mark was probably from one of those communities and writing through a non-Jewish lens, to a bunch of people who didn't know any better either, so it got accepted.
>>327180
There's this here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/billykangas/2012/01/the-shame-of-the-cross.html
Pic is a very early roman graffiti representing a crucified donkey to mock christians
It didn't really become an accepted symbol until the second century.
>>327209
>Eli/Eloi? Really? He quoted a Psalm, you mongrel.
No, Psalm 22 says
אֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי
Which is in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
>Seeing that you lump all Jews together and expect me to swallow that they are a unified demographic with a singular culture
Considering another issue I have with him is attributing a Sadducee position to "Pharisees", I don't think you read my post that carefully.
>Herodias
Here's what Josephus has to say about her:
>Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas
>>327210
Well that makes sense, if it was written that far later. I found these old posts on the subject from this website. I'm not sure what to make of the authenticity of each author but I was wondering what you and others might think of these arguments.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm
>>327230
Crucified deities were quite common in those times
>>327292
Cite some
>>327292
> Google search this image
> Comes up with a book named "The Jesus Mysteries"
> Look at Wikipedia page
> When the BBC approached N. T. Wright, asking him to debate Freke and Gandy concerning their thesis in The Jesus Mysteries, Wright replied that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."
el oh el
>>327323
>wright
>professional anything
El oh el
>>327232
>No, Psalm 22 says
>אֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי
>Which is in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
The only one that actually matters is Greek.
>>327323
Improve your google search skills, the image is Orpheus crucified (you can even see the greek word for orpheus on the image)
>This board seriously believes that Jesus didn't exist
Well, back to /lit/.
>>327232
>No, Psalm 22 says
Nice try fag. I explicitly stated that his first language was greek and the second aramaic. He wasn't using the hebrew OT. He was using the Septuagint. He wouldn't have know the correct hebrew writing and would have used the phonetic aramaic form. The formation similarity does not have anything to do with it.
>Considering another issue I have with him is attributing a Sadducee position to "Pharisees", I don't think you read my post that carefully.
If you read Mk 3, 1-6 carefully you'd see that it isn't know from the beginning who is criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Only in V. 6 it is revealed that it is the Pharicees and the Herodians. Make your own connections between an important ruling party and the high priest aristocracy which didn't solely consist of priests. Considering that Mark wrote that those people made the decision to kill him the Synhedrion is implied here which also mostly consisted of Sadducees but not solely.
>Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas
And Jesus rightfully called her a whore in Mk 10, 12.
>>327254
>http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm
I haven't read them, and I've gotten a few work calls, but I'll give them a read when I get a chance.
>>327408
Why does the Greek matter, when I don't think anyone disputes it was originally in Hebrew, and Mark quotes it in Aramaic?
>>327425
10 seconds on Wikipedia
>Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a golden phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).
Turns out Horus had a father.
>>327232
Since you know Hebrew can you answer whether or not the Old Testament has a prophecy about a virgin birth, I've heard it refers to a 'young woman'.
>>327425
Dionisus
*Mother was selected by Zeus the Father to bear his child
*Being a priestess she would have been a virgin
*Impregnated without sex
*Virgin birth
*She dies in some versions she is ascended to heaven after she dies like Mary
*Dionysus had several titles Jesus also had
*Dionysus turned water into wine
Not sure if he ressurected though.
>>326092
Duh.
>>327254
Ok, I take that back, I've read the first one, and I haven't the second one before you sent me at it.
To be honest, I'm not hugely impressed with either. Don't get me wrong, they're more extensive than the stuff I'm posting here, but I expect a bit more from people who are writing in a quasi-professional format, as opposed to just shitposting on 4chan.
Shredding the Gospels can't keep his anti-Christian vitriol out of his readings (Matthew misconstrues OT prophecies! Obviously he hasn't read them! doesn't quite hold true when you realize that Christians are probably going to read Christian messages into the OT, whereas non-Christian Jews wouldn't.) and the defending them uses a lot of apologetic stuff that I personally have never found particularly convincing.
>>327464
>Nice try fag. I explicitly stated that his first language was greek and the second aramaic. He wasn't using the hebrew OT. He was using the Septuagint. He wouldn't have know the correct hebrew writing and would have used the phonetic aramaic form.
He's supposedly quoting Jesus. Who ought to have known Hebrew if he was the Rabbinic scholar Mark is attributing to him. Mark's giving the line "improperly" speaks volumes to his not being there and not knowing much about Judea, which has been my point from the get-go.
> The formation similarity does not have anything to do with it.
It does when he calls a reference to it in 15:35.
>If you read Mk 3, 1-6 carefully you'd see that it isn't know from the beginning who is criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Only in V. 6 it is revealed that it is the Pharicees and the Herodians.
This argument only makes sense if you somehow think Mark was traveling along after Jesus and writing things down as they happened with no editing whatseover afterwards.
Mark the gospel is writing this all, after the fact. He clearly means to imply that the Pharisees were upset and went to the Herodians to hatch their little conspiracies because of the immediately preceding story, and thus implies that the Pharisees have a problem with his healing.
> Make your own connections between an important ruling party and the high priest aristocracy which didn't solely consist of priests.
The Herodians and the Sadducees? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.
>Considering that Mark wrote that those people made the decision to kill him the Synhedrion is implied here which also mostly consisted of Sadducees but not solely.
I'd like a citation for that. Especially what with the Nasi invariably being one of Hillel's relatives, all of whom I'm aware of being Pharisees.
>>327509
From Isaiah 7:14?
The word in issue is הָעַלְמָה; and at least in modern Hebrew, it does not carry any connotation of virginity, simply youth.
I'm less skilled with Biblical era Hebrew, and off the top of my head, I can't think of another instance in the Bible where the word is used.
However, I have read the rest of that chapter, and it's pretty clear from the context that he's talking about a prophecy for Ahaz, about an attack on his kingdom by the leaders of the northern Israelis and the Syrians, not about something that's way, way later.
>Yet, before the child shall know to refuse evil and choose the good: the land of those two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken
>The Lord shall bring upon you, and upon your people, and upon your father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departs from Judah, and even the king of Assyria.
If you ever hear the term "dual prophecy", it's an apologetic term to say that Isaiah is both prohpesizing for the immediate and Jesus some seven centuries later. Pretty much all contemporary Jews who had read the passage would think it's a prophecy made a long time ago about a time a long time ago.
>>327106
>C.S. Lewis addressed that point quite clearly in Mere Christianity
All you're saying here is C.S. Lewis made up some nice sounding apologetics bullshit about this point in one of his waste of time blatherskite books of proselytizing nonsense.
Nothing any apologist has to say on the subject of historicity of Jesus is worthy of merit. They are all institutionally biased and C.S. Lewis was an author and an English professor, not a historian.
Literally citing him is a complete waste of time.
>>325373
>What color shoes was Tutankhamun wearing when he died?
>According to Napoleon it was blue, but Henry VIII said it was green
>So which is most likely?
>>327617
No, he's saying your pop psychology bullshit is an unoriginal shower thought that has already been addressed in scholarly work. You can either read his work and rebute it honestly or pretend that bias is a problem specific to christian apologists and fedora tippers are magically unaffected by it.
>>327617
>nice sounding apologetics bullshit
Just because somebody is defending something you disagree with doesn't mean that they are wrong. Saying that an apologetic is institutionally biased is a non-statement, of course they are, but you look past the bias and see if their argument has any merit.
Dismissing someone's arguments on the simple grounds that they don't come from a professional historian is the pinnacle of academic snobbery and goes to show how little merit your own opinions and articulations have, considering the fact that you are posting them anonymously on the 4chan armchair history board.
>>327698
He never gave an argument. He just said some guy wrote a book and never bothered to state what Lewi's defense was. There's no defense given!
>>327668
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is not a scholarly work.
It is not peer reviewed, it is an apologetics treatise. The exact polar opposite of what qualifies for a scholarly work.
>>327698
Nice strawman.
The reason apologetics is wrong is because it begins with a conclusion and seeks to justify it with evidence, rather than following where evidence leads.
It is the exact polar opposite of honest, critical inquiry in a search for truth.
>>327698
>Dismissing someone's arguments on the simple grounds that they don't come from a professional historian
That's not what I did, though.
I dismissed Lewis' argument because it is apologetics, which is by definition nonsense attempts to white wash information to reach a conclusion you desire, rather than attempting to discern the facts based on the data.
>>327707
And despite not even having a defense to address, you dismissed it out of hand as "apologetics bullshit" and "proselytizing nonsense," then extended it to the entire class of apologetic arguments.
>nothing any apologist has to say... is worthy of merit
This is the absurdity that I take issue with. Despite this being a 4chan board, there is still an active attempt to keep discourse at a sensible level... and yet people like you will come in and dismiss in absolutes a whole side of discourse, simply out of personal bias. Instead of asking the anon to provide a real argument rather than a vague reference, you took the statement at face value and used it as an opportunity to lower the entire line of discussion into generalizations and namecalling.
You don't get to turn around and defend yourself by saying there was no defense to respond to, since clearly that didn't prevent you from responding in the first place. I'm not making excuses for his shit attempt at a contribution, but your response to it was somehow even worse.
>>327713
>The reason apologetics is wrong is because it begins with a conclusion and seeks to justify it with evidence
Even if this were true, the motivate of the person making an argument has no bearing on its soundness, so this is false and your reason for rejecting Mere Christianity is invalid.
>>327759
Lol yes it does. Its called bias.
If you begin from a biased conclusion and work backwards, you will always find what you are looking for.
There's a reason why we don't engage in this behavior in scientific and academic research.
The entire field of scholarly inquiry is constructed explicitly to avoid this type of systemic bias, because it does in fact result in unsound results, by definition.
And it is true.
Suck on it.
>>327758
That was a different poster from me.
Apologetics is not a "side in discourse". It is unsound reasoning on its face. It is an attempt to prove religious dogma true by declaring religious dogma true by fiat.
It is not a side in discourse, it is an attempt to end reasonable inquiry and honest discourse through dishonest intellectual games.
The personal bias is on the part of the apologeticists and their flock of mind numb robots. Not the people pointing out that confirmation bias driven methodologies result in unsound outcomes.
Apologetics and theology are snipe hunts through the wilds of human imagination. Nothing more.
>>327792
>Its called bias.
Which is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument itself. I could be biased towards a proposition and give a sound argument for it and my bias wouldn't somehow magically make the argument unsound.
>>327792
>If you begin from a biased conclusion and work backwards
If you are claiming that the arguments in Mere Christianity are unsound, you need to provide evidence for that, but that would require a serious engagement with the work instead of the pseudointellectual posturing you're doing here by reminding us of basic psychological concepts that we're already familiar with.
>>327816
>Which is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument itself.
Incorrect.
If inquiry begins from a biased position it cannot reach a proper conclusion.
That's why the entire methodology of rational inquiry seeks to reduce bias to the greatest amount possible.
Apologetics, on the other hand, attempts to infuse as much bias as possible into their inquiry.
By definition, this invalidates the soundness of any apologetics argument from the get go.
>>327836
The arguments in Mere Christianity are unsound because they are apologetics attempts to white wash questions regarding Christianity in nonsense, they aren't academically peer reviewed, the entire treatise began as a radio program. The very premise that there are arguments in there worthy of merit is laughable on its face.
>>327758
I'm not the same guy. =/
It's been like 10 posts and nobody has even stated what Lewis's arguments are. It's just been shit posting.
>>327836
>pseudointellectual posturing you're doing here by reminding us of basic psychological concepts that we're already familiar with.
If you're so familiar with them, why are you attempting to throw out the most basic and necessary portions of rational inquiry to defend an irrational treatise that attempts to argue for the merits of Christianity primarily by declaring that "You can't be moral without Jesus!"
Here, let me debunk the main thrust of Mere Christianity for you in a couple of sentences:
Morality is not the product of a magical wizard in the sky injecting us with a sense of right from wrong. Morality is herd instinct expressed at the individual level. It is the product of mutually beneficial positive selection for pro social behavior in socialized animals. We see moral behavior in other primates, other herd and social animals. We have no evidence that a magical sky wizard exists, or that morality is injected into our beings from an outside source, and all evidence points to moral sensibilities and ethical behaviors being a result of natural selection and descent with modification favoring behaviors which increase survival of a species via successful group interactions.
Happy?
>>327845
>this invalidates the soundness of any apologetics argument from the get go.
Bias doesn't invalidate an argument, as already explained. You are conflating inquiry and arguments.
>The arguments in Mere Christianity are unsound
No evidence given. Your points about inquiry are irrelevant.
>>327845
>If inquiry begins from a biased position it cannot reach a proper conclusion.
But that's wrong. You cannot reach a correct conclusion only if the position you're defending is wrong anyway. It doesn't say anything about the actual validity of the arguments put forward, which have to be examined one by one anyway.
This if just a fallacy that allows you to completely ignore arguments without actually examining them.
>>327873
>Bias doesn't invalidate an argument, as already explained. You are conflating inquiry and arguments.
Bias absolutely invalidates any position founded upon it.
>No evidence given. Your points about inquiry are irrelevant.
Burden shifting fallacy. The burden to defend an apologetics claim is on the person making it
>>327874
Name the fallacy and show me the syllogistic construction of the fallacy you think I'm making.
>>325373
>OP poses legitimate historical question, "What type of cross was Jesus of Nazareth most likely crucified on?"
>States his argument after the unbiased question was asked.
>Gives counter arguments along with who they are.
>Poses question again to instigate discussion.
>First post of thread is atheistic shitposting.
>Thread devolves into doctrinal debates and atheist dick-waving.
>Nobody actually answers the question.
/his/ - the board where everybody is a faggot except for OP.
>>327857
>>327857
>Morality is not the product of a magical wizard in the sky injecting us with a sense of right from wrong. Morality is herd instinct expressed at the individual level. It is the product of mutually beneficial positive selection for pro social behavior in socialized animals. We see moral behavior in other primates, other herd and social animals. We have no evidence that a magical sky wizard exists, or that morality is injected into our beings from an outside source, and all evidence points to moral sensibilities and ethical behaviors being a result of natural selection and descent with modification favoring behaviors which increase survival of a species via successful group interactions.
You're conflating the concepts of subjective and objective morality there.
>>327906
>You're conflating the concepts of subjective and objective morality there.
No, if there is an evolutionary basis for morality and ethical behavior, that is an objective basis, not a subjective one.
>>327906
"If you ask anyone what is morality based on, these are the two factors that always come out: One is RECIPROCITY and is associated with justice and a sense of fairness; and the other one is EMPAHTY and compassion. Human morality is more than these, but if you remove these two pillars, there would be not much remaining. They are both essential." ~ Frans de Waal
There is your objective basis for morality sans deity.
>>327857
>magical wizard in the sky
Your fedora is showing
>>327886
>Name the fallacy and show me the syllogistic construction of the fallacy you think I'm making.
I've already explained it to you plainly.
The fact that you start from a biased premised says nothing about the actual legitimacy and validity or invalidity of the arguments put forward.
This is basic reasoning.
What you're doing is the equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU OVER MY LOGIC AND REASON LALALALA, no matter how actually reasoned and logical the arguments put forward are.
It's just so retarded it doesn't even have a name. Starting from a biased standpoint may put your reasoning in doubt, but you cannot pronounce a judgment on the overall validity based on that. You have to examine all the arguments put forward anyway, it's not a "get out of trouble free" card.
>I know it's wrong but the shitposting must flow
>>327792
That's totally fine, though – if you work backwards with bias, you will reach a biased conclusion, and that biased conclusion will be easily dismantled. The soundness of the argument comes from how easily it can be taken apart and disproved, not from the reason for making it. An apologetic argument, if fundamentally biased as you say, would be unsound because it is inherently flawed by that bias, not because it was found by "working backwards."
What you're essentially saying is that X is indefensible because in order to begin constructing a defense for X, you have to accept the premise that X exists. No shit, really?
>by declaring religious dogma true by fiat
But that's not true, and would controvert the entire point of apologetic arguments.
And before you bring it up, no, I am neither a Christian nor a theist.
>>327925
Poor Christfags.
>>327928
>I've already explained it to you plainly.
So basically....you can't do that.
Thanks for flat out admitting you don't know what you're talking about. Fallacies of reasoning are syllogistic and formulaic. If you can't even demonstrate the formula for why the claim I've made is a fallacy, then guess what?
Its not a fallacy. You're just labeling a position you dislike as a fallacy because, well frankly, you lack an education to know what a fallacy of reasoning actually is.
>>327935
>What you're essentially saying is that X is indefensible because in order to begin constructing a defense for X, you have to accept the premise that X exists. No shit, really?
X is indefensible because absolutely no evidence exists to support it in the first place, so accepting it is true without bothering to provide any evidence to justify the acceptance of it as a truth claim is skipping a step, and in the process, invalidating the argument from the get go.
What you end up with is a tautology, and that is by definition fallacious and unsound argumentation.
>>327947
Dude calm down, Jesus loves you
>>327950
Jesus never existed brah
Dudes as fake as Gandalf.
>>327886
Bias is simply a psychological inclination towards a position, which has no bearing on the soundness of that position. At best it gives you a reason to be skeptical of something, but no grounds to dismiss it as invalid. For that, you need to actually look at the arguments, which you haven't done because you haven't even read the book and you're trying your hardest to avoid reading it.
>>327966
We've already demonstrated that this is incorrect right here brah
>>327947
The claim becomes a tautology by presuming the truth value without demonstrating it first.
A tautology is an unsound and fallacious argument.
This is more than justified grounds to dismiss it as invalid so long as no evidence to justify the initial presumption is provided.
In the absence of evidence we have no alternative but to conclude the null hypothesis is correct.
>>327966
>For that, you need to actually look at the arguments, which you haven't done because you haven't even read the book and you're trying your hardest to avoid reading it.
Ahem
See:
>>327857
Where I explicitly debunked the primary thrust of the treatise.
I've read Lewis. I find him to be one of the worst apologists in recent memory.
>>327947
>So basically....you can't do that.
>Thanks for flat out admitting you don't know what you're talking about. Fallacies of reasoning are syllogistic and formulaic. If you can't even demonstrate the formula for why the claim I've made is a fallacy, then guess what?
>Its not a fallacy. You're just labeling a position you dislike as a fallacy because, well frankly, you lack an education to know what a fallacy of reasoning actually is.
You're really fucking autistic. Your reasoning is fallacious, false, and I've explained it to you.
Let's do it logically then shall we?
Biased premise!=wrong arguments
biased premise!=necessarily wrong conclusion
An argument is true or false based on its own merits, not on the basis of the biased or not premise that you want to demonstrate.
>X is indefensible because absolutely no evidence exists to support it in the first place
But, double-nigger, the whole premise is to say X is true and here is why I think that.
>What you end up with is a tautology
But that's wrong. What you are saying is that someone saying "I think X is true and here is why I think that" is necessarily using invalid arguments?
Or do you think all apologetics follow the line of
>X is true
>therefore Y
>therefore Z
>therefore X is true
Because that's wrong, you know.
>negro jesus
top b8
>>328013
#rekt
>>327975
>We've already demonstrated that this is incorrect
You just changed the topic from psychological inclinations to something else. You don't know what "the claim" is because you haven't read the book and you don't know if he failed to demonstrate it because you haven't read the book.
>>327980
>I've read Lewis.
Yeah, no. That paragraph is literally a shitpost from a meme caption image.
After all this good debate and source masters I have a question:
What type of cross was Jesus of Nazareth most likely crucified on?
It is commonly accepted that a sign stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was affixed above him, so this seems to discredit the idea that it was a tau crucifix (pic related)
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim he was crucified on a crux simplex, or just a simple stake. The Orthodox Church asserts that a bar was placed beneath his feat so as to support his weight (which is where the Three Barred Cross comes from)
So which is most likely?
>>328013
>You're really fucking autistic. Your reasoning is fallacious, false, and I've explained it to you.
No, you didn't. You declared it a fallacy, couldn't provide a syllogistic construction demonstrating that fact, got really buttmad and made this post accusing me of autism as a result.
>Biased premise!=wrong arguments
>biased premise!=necessarily wrong conclusion
>An argument is true or false based on its own merits, not on the basis of the biased or not premise that you want to demonstrate.
This is not a syllogistic construction.
Have you even taken a basic, introductory class on syllogistic reasoning.
Here is how a proper syllogism is constructed, in this case Modus Ponens, the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement is accepted, and the antecedent holds, then the consequent may be inferred
P->Q, P
Therefore: Q
And here's a syllogistic form for a fallacy, in this case, affirming the disjunct:
A or B
A
Therefore, not B
Continued...
>>328032
It was probably a "normal" cross.
Whether it had the part to stand on depends on whether the nails went through the hands or wrists
>>328013
>But, double-nigger, the whole premise is to say X is true and here is why I think that.
Beginning from assuming a false premise is true, and then arguing that it is true because you say so, is a tautological argument.
Sorry bub.
>But that's wrong. What you are saying is that someone saying "I think X is true and here is why I think that" is necessarily using invalid arguments?
The claim is not "I think X is true".
What you're literally describing, by the way, is a fallacy called affirming the consequent
The syllogistic structure follows this form:
If P, then Q
Q
Therefore, P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>>328031
>You just changed the topic from psychological inclinations to something else. You don't know what "the claim" is because you haven't read the book and you don't know if he failed to demonstrate it because you haven't read the book.
The claim is that God is the foundation of morality, in regards to the primary thrust of Mere Christianity
>Yeah, no. That paragraph is literally a shitpost from a meme caption image.
That paragraph is literally the findings of one of the premier primatologists and ethologists conducting research today, Franz de Waal.
>>328034
>Therefore it also results of an individual choice to follow that instinct or not, humanity not being bound by pure instinct.
>Therefore it's a subjective choice, with a natural predisposition.
Incorrect. This is a strawman. The behavior is modified by culture and environment, but the foundations of empathy and reciprocity are absolute foundations.
>>328032
>What type of cross was Jesus of Nazareth most likely crucified on?
There was no cross, and Jesus was not crucified.
The entire story is nonsense wrapped in more nonsense.
Any rigorous study of the subject demonstrates this fact, like the claim that the Romans allowe Jews to take crucifixtion victims down and bury them elsewhere. Completely false. The idea that Pilate was a cowering nincompoop who was easily manipulated by crowds of angry Jews is also nonsense.
There are more contradictions in the Jesus story, so many that copious books are written on them.
Try reading any of them. Grow a brain.
>>328044
Holy shit, that's what I call doubling down.
A fallacy is a wrong reasoning. Your reasoning that a biased premise equates to invalid arguments is a blanket statement and is wrong, because it's a false equivalence.
And here you are, arguing the semantics of formal fallacy...
>>328070
Saying an argument is wrong because it assumes the conclusion in the premise is different from saying it's wrong because of the psychological inclinations of the person who made it. I can be biased towards a proposition and give a non circular argument for it. You are changing the topic because you know your point about bias invalidating an argument was wrong.
>>328093
>A fallacy is a wrong reasoning.
Confirmed has never had even a single syllogistic, Aristotelian reasoning class.
"A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
>Your reasoning that a biased premise equates to invalid arguments is a blanket statement and is wrong, because it's a false equivalence.
Incorrect.
A false equivalence fallacy is described thusly
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]"
My argument does not fit this form of false argumentation.
Please demonstrate it does.
>>328104
No one has changed any topic. What are you smoking tonight bro?
My position has remained constant and unchanging in this discussion. A biased position which presumes the truth value of a claim without demonstrating it is a tautology and a fallacious argument.
This is why the entire methodology of rational inquiry works to reduce bias.
Apologetics does the exact opposite, it attempts to inject as much bias as possible into the presuppositions being made, in order to reach the conclusion it has in mind, rather than following the evidence where it leads.
>>328070
>Beginning from assuming a false premise is true
Who is assuming things now? But I digress.
>and then arguing that it is true because you say so
So basically you're saying "I think your premise is bullshit, therefore all your carefully picked arguments are bullshit", completely ignoring if the arguments themselves are tautological or not.
Wew lad.
>>328114
>My position has remained constant and unchanging in this discussion. A biased position which presumes the truth value of a claim without demonstrating it is a tautology and a fallacious argument.
Wrong.
>Bias absolutely invalidates any position founded upon it.
-You
Which is also wrong.
Thanks for playing.
>>328122
>Who is assuming things now?
Not I.
>So basically you're saying "I think your premise is bullshit, therefore all your carefully picked arguments are bullshit", completely ignoring if the arguments themselves are tautological or not.
The arguments are already by definition tautological.
I dunno why you have so much trouble grasping this. I think its that lack of basic education you have, frankly. This is why intro to syllogistic reasoning should be taught in high school, not university.
>>328124
>Wrong.
Assertion fallacy
>-You
>Which is also wrong.
Another assertion fallacy.
Defending a tautological fallacy with multiple assertion fallacies isn't helping your case here brah.
Hate to break it to ya.
Thanks for playing
>>328128
>The arguments are already by definition tautological.
They are only tautological if they are actually making use of the premise that the proponent intends to defend.
Next.
>>328128
I already explained why bias doesn't invalidate a argument. I quoted you verbatim to show how you were changing the topic. Glad we agree that you were wrong.
Paul, James, and Mark, all date from 50 to 70 and up to 90.
Jesus died in 30 - 35
Temple destroyed and war between Jews and Romans around 65 and 70 AD
Nero died in 68AD? And he was persecuting Christians before this date.
It would make sense if they tried to get rid of evidence for someone as controversial as Jesus.
>>328128
>look ma! I learned some new words from the rational wiki! i dont understand them but they sure make me look smart!
>>328147
>They are only tautological if they are actually making use of the premise that the proponent intends to defend.
Which they are, by definition. That's why apologetics fails.
Are you seriously arguing that C.S. Lewis didn't begin with the premise "Jesus is the one true son of God, and our Lord and Savior"?
Next.
>>328151
>I already explained why bias doesn't invalidate a argument
No, you didn't. What you did was fail at making a properly structured syllogistic argument, cry about autism, and then get mad.
> I quoted you verbatim to show how you were changing the topic.
No argument has been altered. Sorry to break it to you.
>Glad we agree that you were wrong.
There's that assertion fallacy for the third time.
>>328158
Horselaugh fallacy doesn't help your case either.
What we have here is a case of some very butthurt theists mad that their best arguers can be dismissed out of hand for making fallacious arguments from baseless positions being called out for what they are, and having no clear rebuttal to this fact.
Complete and total theistic meltdown incoming.
C.S. Lewis was an Oxford medieval Literature scholar, popular writer, Christian apologist, and former atheist. He used the argument outlined below in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[11]"
Here is a great example of Lewis' clear bias operating to generate unsound conclusions. He presumes that Jesus must be god, lest he be a liar or a lunatic. He begins from the premise Jesus is Lord, and concludes Jesus must be Lord.
Thus he fails to grasp that there is another "L" word that fits perfectly into this formulation, and completely breaks the argument apart at its core. Besides "Liar" "Lunatic" or "Lord" Christ could easily be "Legend".
>>328164
>i can make up my own words too and make myself look even smarter!
>>328161
>Which they are, by definition.
By YOUR definition, it seems. Because no, apologetics doesn't necessarily means that you are using the conclusion you want to demonstrate as the premise of the actual arguments that led you to that position. Because that is actually wrong, but apparently you think that all apologetics work like that.
For the record I haven't even read C.S. Lewis, but somehow you are using him to make a blanket statement, saying that C.S. Lewis was wrong, therefore all apologetics must work like what C.S. Lewis did and are wrong.
Do I need to explain to you how retarded that is?...
>>328179
>make up words
https://www.google.com/search?q=horselaugh+fallacy&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS603US603&oq=horselaugh+fallacy&aqs=chrome..69i57.3151j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
>Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
>Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
>The Horse Laugh.
>The Horse Laugh.
>The Horse Laugh.
>The Horse Laugh.
Yup, the problem we're having here has been properly discerned by me: You're an uneducated person.
Sorry to have to say that to you, but now that you know you live in ignorance, you have no reason to perpetuate such a sad state of affairs. there is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but there is something wrong with being willfully ignorant.
>>328180
>they aren't, except when they are
Another way of saying "I was wrong".
>>328185
>By YOUR definition, it seems.
Ah, no, by every definition of what it means to conduct rational inquiry in a sound way such that we can properly discern truth value from false, actually.
Just any class on the basic sciences at the university level will help you. I suggest biology or chemistry, personally.
>>328193
>Strawman
Stacking more fallacies up isn't making you more correct.
That's what we call a two wrongs fallacy.
>>328197
It's not a strawman.
>they aren't when
This is contingent, it doesn't show that they are the same thing in general.
Calling logical fallacies where there are none isn't making you more correct.
>>328210
>It's not a strawman.
Actually it is. You replaced my actual argument with the words "I was wrong".
Knocking down a claim I didn't make in place of actually addressing the claim I did make is the dictionary definition of a strawman.
>This is contingent, it doesn't show that they are the same thing in general.
You'll notice that you have altered the form and structure of my argument by deleting two commas
Your "quote" of my statement
>they aren't when
My actual statement
>No, they aren't, when
Strawman detected.
>>328197
>Ah, no, by every definition of what it means to conduct rational inquiry in a sound way such that we can properly discern truth value from false, actually.
>Just any class on the basic sciences at the university level will help you. I suggest biology or chemistry, personally.
Pfhahah.
So you're basically saying that, for example a scientist that proved a theory and wants to make an account of this by starting his demonstration by "X is true, and here is how I came to that conclusion" is starting from a biased standpoint because he stated his conclusion at the beginning?
Or are you saying that ALL christian apologists start with their belief and try to find arguments defending it, and that they CANNOT state what they are trying to defend, and then work logically their way to that position by starting from an entirely different premise that is commonly accepted?
Pls.
>>328222
The commas don't make a difference here. You are saying they're the same thing when certain conditions hold which doesn't show that they're the same thing in the general case. Calling logical fallacies where there are none isn't making you more correct.
>>328229
>Pfhahah.
Horselaugh fallacy detected again.
>So you're basically saying that
See that "basically" you injected there?
Strawman detected as well.
You guys are just completely melting down into fallacies at this point. Its sad and pathetic.
But hilarious
>>328232
Actually, yes they do.
You could rewrite my statement as "not when" removing the "they aren't" and the "contingency" you inferred would be removed entirely.
The commas fundamentally matter, which is why you had to excise them to construct your fallacy of my statement to attack it, because my actual position is unassailable.
>>328229
>Or are you saying that ALL christian apologists start with their belief and try to find arguments defending it
That's definitional.
Same goes for Islamic apologists. Buddhist apologists. Hindu apologists.
If you begin from the proposition that your religion is correct, then seek data to confirm your position, you are affirming the consequent, and engaging in tautological and circular based reasoning which invalidates your position from the get go.
Hence why no apologists should even be referenced in any real discussion of merit. They have none. They are entirely subsumed by their bias, and are incapable of changing their minds, or altering their positions. They are incapable of being wrong, when proven wrong they will simply alter the facts to fit their preconceived notion.
The evidence for this is copious. The Catholic Church, for instance, did not accept the Earth was round, until it had to, at which point the Earth was always round, they always believed it was round, the Bible confirms its roundness, God loves round objects and the Pope is his infallible voice on Earth, do not question him.
>>328242
>Horselaugh fallacy detected again.
Here's a new free one for you
>mommy he made fun of me!
>See that "basically" you injected there?
That means correct me if I'm wrong, when you're not an autist focusing on semantics. Which you didn't. Am I to assume I was correct then?
>You guys are just completely melting down into fallacies at this point. Its sad and pathetic.
>But hilarious
Whatever makes you laugh, I guess.
>>328261
>Here's a new free one for you
Butthurt detected in placement of an argument
Your explicit admission you have no cogent rebuttal and that my position is unassailable and correct and you recognize it and are admitting as such is accepted on its face for the complete and total capitulation it is.
>That means correct me if I'm wrong, when you're not an autist focusing on semantics
>Complaining about semantics arguments when you've been attempting to make a semantics argument and it was rebutted by pointing to your failure to properly construct your sentence
>Am I to assume I was correct then?
Assumptions on the part of people like yourself is how we got to this point in the first place. I would avoid them if I were you. You tend to be very wrong when you engage in them.
>>328242
I can rewrite any statement using a double negation. That wouldn't change its logical meaning. The commas are just a piece of syntax that help convey meaning and it made that meaning clearer while you're trying to obscure it because you know you are wrong.
>>328272
>I can rewrite any statement using a double negation. That wouldn't change its logical meaning.
There was no double negation in my sentence. At this point your just swinging at shadows.
>>328275
I didn't say there was. At this point you're just making irrelevant points.
>>328258
>That's definitional.
You totally ignored the rest of the sentence there.
>then seek data to confirm your position, you are affirming the consequent
No you're not. You're literally just showing data that confirms your position. Nothing more, and nothing less. It may be insufficient data to actually confirm the initial position, or the data itself may be wrong, but you are not affirming the consequent.
That is simply a leap in logic.
>>328282
>I didn't say there was.
Then you've committed a non sequitor fallacy on top of all the rest you've committed tonight.
Clearly you are incapable of addressing the argument, as it was made, and have gotten stuck in a retard loop.
I feel sorry for you.
>>328287
>You totally ignored the rest of the sentence there.
I didn't ignore it. It simply has no merit since it ignores the definitional quality of the apologetics position.
>No you're not. You're literally just showing data that confirms your position. Nothing more, and nothing less. It may be insufficient data to actually confirm the initial position, or the data itself may be wrong, but you are not affirming the consequent.
>That is simply a leap in logic.
C.S. Lewis' argument for the trilemma is "Jesus exists and is Lord. If he was not Lord, then he was a lunatic or a liar. Jesus couldn't be a lunatic or a liar, because then our entire religion would be false. Therefore Jesus was Lord."
William Lane Craig's argument from contingency goes "If a god exists, then it must exist everywhere, therefore a god exists".
Presuppositionalist apologetics goes "God must exist for logic and reason to exist. Logic and reason exist, therefore God exists"
These are three of the top apologetics arguments thriving today.
So, no, no leap in logic on my part at all.
The leap is entirely on the part of the apologeticist.
>>328258
Look, I am new to this argument, but this statement that a definitional apologist is wrong from the get go is simply idiotic.
https://ia802607.us.archive.org/11/items/cremationdead00eassgoog/cremationdead00eassgoog.pdf
The link is from William Eassie's pamphlet "Cremation of the dead". It's an apologetic, arguing for the beneficial use of cremation to dispose of dead bodies.
He is biased, he is arguing for a predicated conclusion, namely that more people, especially Europeans, should be cremating their dead as opposed to burying them.
That does not invalidate his many claims or his evidence about cheapness, sanitation, effects on inhibiting disease, space of disposal, etc. on the subject of cremation, despite his clear and open bias and that he's arguing for a specific point.
>The Catholic Church, for instance, did not accept the Earth was round, until it had to, at which point the Earth was always round, they always believed it was round, the Bible confirms its roundness, God loves round objects and the Pope is his infallible voice on Earth, do not question him.
That's funny, because among other Christian thinkers, Augustine, writing in the 5th century, states that the Earth is round in The City of God, chapter 9 I believe.
>Butthurt detected in placement of an argument
Horselaugh fallacy is an argument for what exactly? That I shouldnt express my extreme amusement at your leaps of logic?
By the way. Your "horselaugh fallacy" implies I didn't try to address your point after. I did, therefore you can only be justified in calling me a meanie.
I don't care.
>>328312
>Horselaugh fallacy is an argument for what exactly?
Horselaugh isn't an argument.
Its an attempt to disregard other arguments by laughing them off.
You might be retarded if you can't grasp this simple concept.
>>328310
First half is a false equivalence. Cremating the dead is not a religion attempting to define a god into existence.
Second half is stupid because the Egyptians and the Greeks knew the Earth was round close to 2500 years prior to Augustine's existence.
Augustine is another really shitty apologist whose opinion on basically everything regarding religion can be disregarded as well, btw.
>>328302
>These are three of the top apologetics arguments thriving today.
>So, no, no leap in logic on my part at all.
Nah, the only thing you are doing is drawing a broad conclusion over 3 particular example.
>>327925
>>328326
>Nah, the only thing you are doing is drawing a broad conclusion over 3 particular example.
No, I'm really not.
Name any apologetic argument for God, and I will demonstrate the exact same pattern of behavior with them.
Go ahead.
There's only about 10 of the stupid things anyway, when you get down to it.
>>328288
Nobody cares that you can rewrite your sentences in different forms with equivalents meanings. That wouldn't remove the contingency unless you changed the meaning, but that would be changing the topic.
>>327473
Early Christians held that divine inspiration happened in the Greek Translation. The Greek is the "original" and the Hebrew can only be regarded as the 'rough draft': useful only in so far as it explains the Greek. This is still held by all orthodox Christians.
>>328323
>First half is a false equivalence. Cremating the dead is not a religion attempting to define a god into existence.
How is that a false equivalence? You said, in this post, >>327713
and I quote
>It is not peer reviewed, it is an apologetics treatise. The exact polar opposite of what qualifies for a scholarly work.
This is also a non-peer reviewed apologetic work. And yet now you're a bit more reluctant to dismiss the arguments out of hand. What separates a religious apologetic from a non-religious apologetic? They're both arguments on behalf of a belief which may or may not be true and are often difficult to prove because they're normative rather than positive arguments in many cases.
>Second half is stupid because the Egyptians and the Greeks knew the Earth was round close to 2500 years prior to Augustine's existence.
And yet it rather neatly skewers your statement >>328258, which I again quote
>The Catholic Church, for instance, did not accept the Earth was round, until it had to, at which point the Earth was always round, they always believed it was round, the Bible confirms its roundness, God loves round objects and the Pope is his infallible voice on Earth, do not question him.
Unless you wish to claim that Augustine is not considered an authortative figure in Catholic theology, but I warn you, that's going to be a tough sell.
>>328341
>I got nothing so I'm gonna whiff my response now
That's all I'm seeing here from you.
Its okay, its getting late, I understand if you have to get up early to rush off to jr high in the morning and you're tired bro.
>>328354
>I'm going to make a stupid point about how I can rewrite sentences in different ways
That's all I'm seeing here from you. None of this invalidates the point about the general case.
>>328329
So, you want more particular examples to prove your initial position, which is still not demonstrated.
k then
You still can't admit that refuting apologetics in general means refuting the actual arguments used.
You refuted 3 of them. (Actually, I didn't verify that they actually used the reasoning you said they used, but let's stipulate this) And then drew a general conclusion over the rest.
Even if I couldn't find any counter example, that still doesn't make you right in general, you know.
>>328353
>How is that a false equivalence?
I already explained that.
We're talking about religious apologetics here, aka discussions attempting to prove immaterial things true
Cremation is literally nothing like this
>This is also a non-peer reviewed apologetic work.
You don't know what the word apologetics means.
>And yet now you're a bit more reluctant to dismiss the arguments out of hand. What separates a religious apologetic from a non-religious apologetic?
There is no such thing as a non religious apologetic. You're conflating definitions.
Troll harder.
Apologetics is defined as the branch of Christianity (or any other religion) that deals with defense of and establishment of that particular faith.
>And yet it rather neatly skewers your statement
No, it doesn't, at all. Anyone who could do basic trigonometry knew the world was not flat, but the Catholic Church insisted it was regardless, for a very long time, to the point they persecuted those who contradicted them.
>Unless you wish to claim that Augustine is not considered an authortative figure in Catholic theology, but I warn you, that's going to be a tough sell.
The Catholic Church didn't actually exist in the 5th century. They claim authority ex post facto going back to St Peter, but the Catholic Church did not break off from the Orthodox until after the Byzantine Papacy ended in the mid 700s.
Grow a brain moran, basically.
>>328364
>I'm rubber you're glue!
1st grade antics from the debate's loser I see.
>>328377
>So, you want more particular examples to prove your initial position, which is still not demonstrate
I want you to provide me any argument that you find credible, which I will then demonstrate fits the same form.
Your attempt to shift burden of proof after I've demonstrated my case sufficiently is not accepted.
>You still can't admit that refuting apologetics in general means refuting the actual arguments used.
That's exactly what I did.
>You refuted 3 of them. (Actually, I didn't verify that they actually used the reasoning you said they used, but let's stipulate this) And then drew a general conclusion over the rest.
>Even if I couldn't find any counter example, that still doesn't make you right in general, you know.
Actually it does, this argument you're making is a goal post shifting fallacy.
>>328378
>I don't have anything left to say so I'm going to make an elementary school joke
You're not even good at saving face.
>>328378
>but the Catholic Church insisted it was regardless, for a very long time, to the point they persecuted those who contradicted them
That's wrong on both points.
>>328378
>We're talking about religious apologetics here, aka discussions attempting to prove immaterial things true
All normative arguments are immaterial things.
The statement
>We should be cremating more people
Is not something that can be proven true or false like statements such as "The world is round" vs "the world is flat".
You have not demonstrated any reason as to why one form of apologetic is irreedemably flawed and not the other. Please do so, with logic, not just the assertion.
>You don't know what the word apologetics means.
Apologetics, drawn from the Greek word "ἀπολογία", "speaking in defense" is defending a position through the systematic use of information. It does not necessarily have to be religious.
>There is no such thing as a non religious apologetic. You're conflating definitions.
Other than, you know, the one I just gave you, which Eassie himself describes as an apologetic. The most famous use of the term, Plato's, has nothing to do with religion and has to do with his mentor Socrates.
>Apologetics is defined as the branch of Christianity (or any other religion) that deals with defense of and establishment of that particular faith.
Incorrect, unless you want to take it up with Plato as to how Socrates's "Apologetic" was in fact not one.
>No, it doesn't, at all. Anyone who could do basic trigonometry knew the world was not flat, but the Catholic Church insisted it was regardless, for a very long time, to the point they persecuted those who contradicted them.
It did not. Its own theologians did not., and I notice you have not actually insisted that Augustine did not say the world was round, but rather that others had the notion before him and that he was a shitty apologist. You are insisting on a factual claim with no basis.
>The Catholic Church didn't actually exist in the 5th century.
You know, it's funny, because Ignatius used the term in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, written in 110.
>>328398
In actuality I've talked you down to the level where you're making irrelevant points about sentence structure and desperately trying to save face by making elementary school jokes and spouting logical fallacies. Keep going.
>>328398
>No, its not.
Provide sources on the church defending the notion of a flat earth and the persecution of those who didn't believe this.
Protip: you won't find many sources earlier than the 19th century. Magellan's famous quote is 100% apocryphal and appeared in the 19th.
>>328388
>Your attempt to shift burden of proof after I've demonstrated my case sufficiently is not accepted.
>sufficiently
Well, that's, like, your opinion man.
>That's exactly what I did.
For 3 particular arguments.
>>327617
so much edge
Pic related, Golgotha. Just a traditional Cross with a sign over it.
>>328398
I would just add to this anon
>>328433
That if you're thinking of Galileo and others like him, the Church was against heliocentrism, not earth's roundness as opposed to flatness. The Pope was defending the Ptolemaic models of astronomy, which, among other things, included spherical planets, including Earth.
>>326092
No.
>>325383
I want the fedoras to return to reddit
>>327644
>color shoes
he didn't wear shoes he wore sandals stupid redditor
Question:
If the gospels can be taken as evidence of Jesus being actually existing, then why does everyone ignore the fact that he came back for a few days after the Crucifixtion and was hiding out in a cave?
They even included a bit about a guy who didn't believe it and touched the wounds to realise it was true. And then Jesus said "Ok I'm gonna leave now" and presumably went off to India?
>>329785
Seeing as you are apparently new to the subject, this well sourced wikipedia article will be enough to get you started and answer whatever questions you might have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
>>325779
No. There's evidence that there were dozens of cults, around the beginning of the common era, that followed charismatic jewish leaders. Several claimed to be the prophsized leader that god would send to the chosen people (the messiah was a common mythlogical story at the time.)
The problem isn't finding historical evidence of Jesus, it's that you find that between 50BCE and 50CE there might have been thirty of him.
>>328445
and nails through the hands (not the wrists)
It looked like a T letter and he carried only the log not whole fucking thing because that's how the crucifixion was carried.
I saw a documentation on TV, they showed the skeleton of a young man, aged 25 and about 2k years old, they found in Jerusalem. He had one bent nail in one of his heels.
The other heel had a hole, appropriate to another nail.
There was a small piece of wood between his bone and the head of the nail, too. The nail was not round as nowadays but quare shaped.
Because the nail was bent, the romans couldn't remove it after the dead of the victim.
So the victim was obviously nailed to the cross through his heels from the left and the right side, not from the front.
The lower leg bones from both legs were broken near the ankle. Probably they where broken by a bar to shorten the suffering.
>>329819
Anyone who really does some research into that articles claimed sources on historicity really just finds Josephus and Tacitus. Most of the others either lack a reference to anyone other than Christians and thus only establish a precedent for Christians to have existed in that timeframe (Suetonius, Pliny the younger), they're forgeries or they were mid-late 2nd Century or later(Talmud, Mara bar Sarapion, Lucian).
Tacitus is somewhat unclear, since it only mentions Christus and this is even more doubtworthy due to the spelling having been altered from Chrestus.
Josephus also does not mention the events detailed in Tacitus even though Josephus could have witnessed the events, likely having been in rome at the time.
Josephus on the other hand has some issues with clear interpolation.
The first relevant passage is generally agreed upon to have been altered, with parts such as "If it be lawful to call him a man" considered to have been interpolated in. The passage has some other issues as well.
I'm not that sure about the second relevant passage though.
>>327065
beyond that we have more surviving records relating to the New Testament than we do for nearly anything else
desu there are more matching records about Jesus than there are about Caesar showing that there is at least some legitimacy insofar as ancient records can be beloved.
>>325395
no there is not, just odd mentions here and there that could be about others. jesus was pretty common name actually. and we must remember that if he was like people think, there should be a shitload of writings from when he lived, not written many years later by someone who never knew him with an personal agenda.
