Happy birthday Jesus

dimitrispearljam

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The standard of evidence submitted earlier stated that something needed to be widely believed to be true in order to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion Christians is a pretty wide sample in my estimation.

That's not evidence, just as if 2.1 billion people believed the World to be flat wouldn't make it so.

buddy,2.1 billion is a huge number,to make things go around,they dont need any evidence...
the number of who many believes is enough..true or not...evidence or no evidence

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The standard of evidence submitted earlier stated that something needed to be widely believed to be true in order to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion Christians is a pretty wide sample in my estimation.

That's not evidence, just as if 2.1 billion people believed the World to be flat wouldn't make it so.

Tacitus counts as evidence, hence there is not zero evidence. Again, evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Tacitus counts as evidence

No it doesn't. 2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event is not evidence. And it's also very likely that the mention of Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery - a later interpolation by the early Church fathers.

It is not evidence.

Last-12-Exit

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe people should spend less time indulging the belief system of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, and pay more attention to the World around them, and to the Earth under their feet, instead.

Good point.

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe people should spend less time indulging the belief system of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, and pay more attention to the World around them, and to the Earth under their feet, instead.

...or perhaps people should revisit these beliefs and carry forth and spread them in the World today.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe people should spend less time indulging the belief system of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, and pay more attention to the World around them, and to the Earth under their feet, instead.

...or perhaps people should revisit these beliefs and carry forth and spread them in the World today.

Or perhaps not.

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Tacitus counts as evidence

No it doesn't. 2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event is not evidence. And it's also very likely that the mention of Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery - a later interpolation by the early Church fathers.

It is not evidence.

Sorry, none of that is correct. If you want to dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs that is on you. Why is your impassioned belief that Jesus did not exist any more any more grounded in reality than the beliefs of 2.1 billion Christians?

pandora

Happy Birthday Jesus

Funny how people are still debating you.

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

Happy Birthday Jesus

Funny how people are still debating you.

You know that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, right?

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Tacitus counts as evidence

No it doesn't. 2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event is not evidence. And it's also very likely that the mention of Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery - a later interpolation by the early Church fathers.

It is not evidence.

Sorry, none of that is correct. If you want to dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs that is on you. Why is your impassioned belief that Jesus did not exist any more any more grounded in reality than the beliefs of 2.1 billion Christians?

What part of what i said isn't correct?

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

What part of what i said isn't correct?

1) Tacitus does count as evidence.

2) It is not likely that Tacitus is a forgery.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[159][160][161][162][122] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine."

Granted that is from Wikipedia but I don't have time for anything else. And we covered this the other day when you claimed Tacitus had been proven a fraud, discovered he had not, and then pretended you had been talking about Josephus all along.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

What part of what i said isn't correct?

1) Tacitus does count as evidence.

2) It is not likely that Tacitus is a forgery.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[159][160][161][162][122] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine."

Granted that is from Wikipedia but I don't have time for anything else. And we covered this the other day when you claimed Tacitus had been proven a fraud, discovered he had not, and then pretended you had been talking about Josephus all along.

2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.

I didn't change anything and again this is ground we have already covered. The definition stated that something needed to be widely considered true to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion believers is pretty wide, and that is not even counting a single person from any other religious group who may believe Jesus existed.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.

I didn't change anything and again this is ground we have already covered. The definition stated that something needed to be widely considered true to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion believers is pretty wide, and that is not even counting a single person from any other religious group who may believe Jesus existed.

2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?

Unfortunately it is the best evidence that has survived for those 2000 years. And while it may be slim and slight, it does not equal zero.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?

Unfortunately it is the best evidence that has survived for those 2000 years. And while it may be slim and slight, it does not equal zero.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

believing to be true isn't the only criteria.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Happy Birthday Santa!

hedonist

In my head, I keep reading the thread title a la Springsteen's "Merry Christmas, Baby!"

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

believing to be true isn't the only criteria.

But no source from antiquity is going to hold up to a modern standard. There is scarce evidence, but there is not zero evidence.