Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Crucifixion argument....

Crucifixion argument....
(05-22-2021, 06:29 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:You are not providing any justification for your argument from silence, and that's exactly what makes it fallacious.


So...let me get this straight.  You think that I should have to explain why no one in the first century ever heard or wrote about a miracle working god boy who supposedly came back from the fucking dead?  Are you serious?

Nope, that is not what I am saying at all. The fallacious argument of silence is is based upon your quote below in regards to what Tacitus wrote, not some water walking figment of someone's imagination.

Minimalist Wrote:The fact that NOT A SINGLE Xhristard writer ever mentions that passage doesn't bother you at all - even when they started whining about how badly they were "persecuted." Instead you trot out that tired old "Argument from Silence" routine.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid299272

You need to justify that argument of silence according to the criteria listed below:

Conditions Required For An Argument From Silence To Be Valid:

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if:

1. the author was expected to have the information, 
2. was intending to give a complete account of the situation,
3. and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

Source HERE

And if you can't, then it's a baseless assertion and that is fallacious.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
Bullshit.

https://www.academia.edu/8751855/The_Cur...om_Silence

Quote:As such, interpretation of the strength or weakness of an AFS should proceed case-by-case, taking the acceptability issue of the relationship between the rhetor’s apparent expertise and the audience’s receptiveness into special account. Without such dialectical controls, it is eas-ier to reject an AFS out of hand for using negative evidence, when closer consideration would have been more profitable for all parties.

Clearly, since this guy disagrees with you I expect to get the "he's not a real scholar" routine.

Negative evidence is vital, otherwise we could never state anything definitively.  It can be overturned by positive evidence if any is found.  But I refuse to overturn it for wishful thinking or delusion.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-22-2021, 07:43 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Bullshit.

https://www.academia.edu/8751855/The_Cur...om_Silence

Quote:As such, interpretation of the strength or weakness of an AFS should proceed case-by-case,  taking  the  acceptability  issue  of  the  relationship  between the  rhetor’s  apparent  expertise  and  the  audience’s  receptiveness into special account. Without such dialectical controls, it is eas-ier  to  reject  an  AFS  out  of  hand  for  using  negative  evidence, when  closer  consideration  would  have  been  more  profitable  for all parties.

Clearly, since this guy disagrees with you I expect to get the "he's not a real scholar" routine.

Negative evidence is vital, otherwise we could never state anything definitively.  It can be overturned by positive evidence if any is found.  But I refuse to overturn it for wishful thinking or delusion.

Actually, the guy agrees with me if you read it correctly. Do you see where he says "negative evidence?"

That's what you need to provide, and you need to provide that in accordance to the criteria I outlined in my previous post. In short, you need to demonstrate according to the criteria WHY and HOW it should be considered as negative evidence.

1. Was any other writer expected to refer to Tacitus' quote in the context of their writings?
2. Was the writer expected to have the information from Tacitus?
3. Was what Tacitus wrote important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time of the writer?

All three are required to demonstrate that the negative evidence is worthy of consideration, and even if it is, it is still only a persuasive argument as negative evidence certainly doesn't carry the weight of positive evidence.

You have not shown the works of any writer who had any need of mentioning that quote from Tacitus. Using your perception of the AFS, we could pick out any number of writers and say, "Well, because they didn't mention Tacitus' quote, we can safely say that Tacitus never said that at all."

Yeah ... seriously.

Ludicrous.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-22-2021, 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:
(05-22-2021, 07:43 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Bullshit.

https://www.academia.edu/8751855/The_Cur...om_Silence

Quote:As such, interpretation of the strength or weakness of an AFS should proceed case-by-case,  taking  the  acceptability  issue  of  the  relationship  between the  rhetor’s  apparent  expertise  and  the  audience’s  receptiveness into special account. Without such dialectical controls, it is eas-ier  to  reject  an  AFS  out  of  hand  for  using  negative  evidence, when  closer  consideration  would  have  been  more  profitable  for all parties.

Clearly, since this guy disagrees with you I expect to get the "he's not a real scholar" routine.

Negative evidence is vital, otherwise we could never state anything definitively.  It can be overturned by positive evidence if any is found.  But I refuse to overturn it for wishful thinking or delusion.

Actually, the guy agrees with me if you read it correctly. Do you see where he says "negative evidence?"

That's what you need to provide, and you need to provide that in accordance to the criteria I outlined in my previous post. In short, you need to demonstrate according to the criteria WHY and HOW it should be considered as negative evidence.

1. Was any other writer expected to refer to Tacitus' quote in the context of their writings?
2. Was the writer expected to have the information from Tacitus?
3. Was what Tacitus wrote important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time of the writer?

All three are required to demonstrate that the negative evidence is worthy of consideration, and even if it it is, it is still a only a persuasive argument as negative evidence certainly doesn't carry the weight of positive evidence.

You have not shown the works of any writer who had any need of mentioning that quote from Tacitus. Using your perception of the AFS, we could pick out any number of writers and say, "Well, because they didn't mention Tacitus' quote, we can safely say that Tacitus never said that at all."

Yeah ... seriously.

Ludacris.  

Ludicrous
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Free
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
Jesus Fucking Christ...."negative evidence" means "no evidence."  It's NEGATIVE because there isn't any in the first century when, supposedly according to your Holy Horseshitters, all this stuff was happening. 


Quote: it is easier  to  reject  an  AFS  out  of  hand  for  using  negative  evidence, when  closer  consideration  would  have  been  more  profitable  for all parties.


I don't think he agrees with your knee-jerk reaction to an AFS.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 05:33 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Jesus Fucking Christ...."negative evidence" means "no evidence."  It's NEGATIVE because there isn't any in the first century when, supposedly according to your Holy Horseshitters, all this stuff was happening.

That's not how it should to be understood in its fuller context. Note:

1. Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth, then that is "positive evidence" to suggest the "negative existence" of Jesus called Christ.

2. Also, if you have a 1st of 2nd century writer who qualifies according to the criteria I previously mentioned, yet said nothing about what Tacitus wrote, then that is also negative evidence.

When you look for something that should be there, but find nothing, that is negative evidence. The emphasis though is on "should be there." You are required to justify why it should be there.

Negative evidence is what is used in the "Evidence of Absence" argument. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.

Evidence of Absence


Quote:
Quote: it is easier  to  reject  an  AFS  out  of  hand  for  using  negative  evidence, when  closer  consideration  would  have  been  more  profitable  for all parties.


I don't think he agrees with your knee-jerk reaction to an AFS.

By the same token, closer examination can also reveal that the negative evidence does not apply to the AFS according to the criteria I previously mentioned.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 02:41 PM)Free Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 05:33 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Jesus Fucking Christ...."negative evidence" means "no evidence."  It's NEGATIVE because there isn't any in the first century when, supposedly according to your Holy Horseshitters, all this stuff was happening.

That's not how it should to be understood in its fuller context. Note:

1. Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth, then that is "positive evidence" to suggest the "negative existence" of Jesus called Christ.

[Image: negative-evidence.jpg]
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 03:16 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 02:41 PM)Free Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 05:33 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Jesus Fucking Christ...."negative evidence" means "no evidence."  It's NEGATIVE because there isn't any in the first century when, supposedly according to your Holy Horseshitters, all this stuff was happening.

That's not how it should to be understood in its fuller context. Note:

1. Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth, then that is "positive evidence" to suggest the "negative existence" of Jesus called Christ.

[Image: negative-evidence.jpg]

Like I said:

Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. 

If you look for something and can "see" it doesn't exist, that observation is used to support negative evidence. After all, how do you know there is negative evidence unless you go looking for it?

"Negative evidence is admissible when a qualified person, who has examined certain records or documents, testifies that he or she did not find any reference to or entry of a particular item or transaction."

A qualified person would not be searching for records unless a positive claim was made that those records may exist. In the example above, he searched and found negative evidence of the records after a positive claim suggested they could exist.

In this case, the negative evidence is taken as positive evidence of non-existence. 

Is there something you're not understanding about that?

Also, it's not lost on me that you intentionally cut out the rest of my quote which demonstrates the further understanding of it.

Consider
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 03:20 PM)Free Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 03:16 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 02:41 PM)Free Wrote: That's not how it should to be understood in its fuller context. Note:

1. Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth, then that is "positive evidence" to suggest the "negative existence" of Jesus called Christ.

[Image: negative-evidence.jpg]

Like I said:

Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. 

If you look for something and can "see" it doesn't exist, that observation is used to support negative evidence. After all, how do you know there is negative evidence unless you go looking for it?

"Negative evidence is admissible when a qualified person, who has examined certain records or documents, testifies that he or she did not find any reference to or entry of a particular item or transaction."

A qualified person would not be searching for records unless a positive claim was made that those records may exist. In the example above, he searched and found negative evidence of the records after a positive claim suggested they could exist.

In this case, the negative evidence is taken as positive evidence of non-existence. 

Is there something you're not understanding about that?

Also, it's not lost on me that you intentionally cut out the rest of my quote which demonstrates the further understanding of it.

Consider

If that is so, Mr. Goal Post Shifter, then why have you been talking about the "AFS" in all these posts ... a bit late now to be changing your definitions.
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 04:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 03:20 PM)Free Wrote:
(05-23-2021, 03:16 PM)Dānu Wrote: [Image: negative-evidence.jpg]

Like I said:

Negative evidence is positive evidence that supports a negative result. 

If you look for something and can "see" it doesn't exist, that observation is used to support negative evidence. After all, how do you know there is negative evidence unless you go looking for it?

"Negative evidence is admissible when a qualified person, who has examined certain records or documents, testifies that he or she did not find any reference to or entry of a particular item or transaction."

A qualified person would not be searching for records unless a positive claim was made that those records may exist. In the example above, he searched and found negative evidence of the records after a positive claim suggested they could exist.

In this case, the negative evidence is taken as positive evidence of non-existence. 

Is there something you're not understanding about that?

Also, it's not lost on me that you intentionally cut out the rest of my quote which demonstrates the further understanding of it.

Consider

If that is so, Mr. Goal Post Shifter, then why have you been talking about the "AFS" in all these posts ... a bit late now to be changing your definitions.

I haven't changed anything. My position is, and always has been, that the AFS must meet the criteria to be a consideration, and if it doesn't then it's useless.

After all, you don't pick up a Harry Potter book to see if they mentioned Tacitus' quote regarding Christ, and then say, "See? Harry Potter never said a fucking word about it, so that means Tacitus never said it!"

Facepalm
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
I'm curious how one can see something that doesn't exist, but I'm not going to ask. I guess where there's a will there's a way.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-23-2021, 04:43 PM)Dānu Wrote: I'm curious how one can see something that doesn't exist, but I'm not going to ask.  I guess where there's a will there's a way.

Because if you look ... and it isn't there ... then it isn't there.

What you are seeing is the lack of the existence of something.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-13-2021, 09:22 AM)TimONeill Wrote: I see. Okay, "expert" - let's see your credentials. Details please.
(05-13-2021, 08:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Never going to happen. I was stalked and threatened on TTA, and we have gone to some lengths to make sure it can't happen again. I do not now and never will work in the field. That's all you're ever going to know. I let my knowledge and writing speak for me, and one of my papers had more than 200,000 hits on TTA. I could care less if you accept what I say or not.

Chuckle. Of course. This happens every time someone claims they are an "expert" and their bluff is called. I always post under my own name, declare my qualifications publicly and invite anyone to check them out. You hide.

Me and Bucky don't always get along, but I can vouch for him. He's got a good degree of expertise in Near Eastern studies, and plenty of knowledge in that area. My evaluation of what I have observed is that he has close to the equivalent of three years of academic study, which is a B.A.

And he's correct about the stalking. I have experienced that myself online back about 22 years ago after I exposed a church in my city for racism.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
Quote: For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth,


Oh, PUH-LEEZE.  Give me a fucking break, Free.

Thanks to mobs of jesus freak thugs who burned down the libraries of antiquity because their fucking useless godboy couldn't stand the competition we have very little of what was written in antiquity.  We do know that there were some anti-xtian polemics if only because a couple of xtian writers made lame attempts to "refute" them.  But anyone who said "jesus is a myth.... and a stupid one at that" had his works burned by the ignorant mobs.

When you write shit like you did above you remind me of the definition of chutzpah...you know, a kid kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

You smugly sit there and say "well, this is all we have left so it MUST BE TRUE knowing full well that as the world collapsed into jesus-freak anarchy your precious holy horseshitters decided they'd make ten thousand copies of their bullshit and let the rest of it which survived the fires crumble into dust because it did not give due deference to fucking jesus.

Come on, man.  Cut the crap.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-26-2021, 02:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote: For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth,


Oh, PUH-LEEZE.  Give me a fucking break, Free.

Thanks to mobs of jesus freak thugs who burned down the libraries of antiquity because their fucking useless godboy couldn't stand the competition we have very little of what was written in antiquity.  We do know that there were some anti-xtian polemics if only because a couple of xtian writers made lame attempts to "refute" them.  But anyone who said "jesus is a myth.... and a stupid one at that" had his works burned by the ignorant mobs.

When you write shit like you did above you remind me of the definition of chutzpah...you know, a kid kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

You smugly sit there and say "well, this is all we have left so it MUST BE TRUE knowing full well that as the world collapsed into jesus-freak anarchy your precious holy horseshitters decided they'd make ten thousand copies of their bullshit and let the rest of it which survived the fires crumble into dust because it did not give due deference to fucking jesus.

Come on, man.  Cut the crap.

It's not crap. It's a 100% fully justified argument from silence. You have plenty of writers from the 1st and 2nd centuries who- if Jesus was a myth- would be expected to say something about it. But in fact, even those who opposed Christianity never, not even once, questioned the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as being an ordinary man. In fact, you have them saying exactly the opposite.

"Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where "the mother of Jesus" is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."

Seems like Celsus was getting his info about Jesus from what was widely known among the population.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-26-2021, 02:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote: For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth,


Oh, PUH-LEEZE.  Give me a fucking break, Free.

Thanks to mobs of jesus freak thugs who burned down the libraries of antiquity because their fucking useless godboy couldn't stand the competition we have very little of what was written in antiquity.  We do know that there were some anti-xtian polemics if only because a couple of xtian writers made lame attempts to "refute" them.  But anyone who said "jesus is a myth.... and a stupid one at that" had his works burned by the ignorant mobs.

When you write shit like you did above you remind me of the definition of chutzpah...you know, a kid kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

You smugly sit there and say "well, this is all we have left so it MUST BE TRUE knowing full well that as the world collapsed into jesus-freak anarchy your precious holy horseshitters decided they'd make ten thousand copies of their bullshit and let the rest of it which survived the fires crumble into dust because it did not give due deference to fucking jesus.

Come on, man.  Cut the crap.

SOMETIMES, you are the wind under my wings. This is one of those times...

I have always thought the last resort against rationality is book burnings. Because books are how we transit thought down through generations we will never get to meet. And when fools and barbarians burn books, they know it is to destroy the knowledge of the past so that they can control the present. I wonder sometimes if the crazies know that controlling the present also has a control on the future? Well, they probably aren't that bright. But the effect is the same. If you destroy the past, you effect the future.

I sometimes imagine what our present would be like if the crazy theists hadn't burned the books in The Library of Alexandria. What would some social thoughts be? What would we moderns NOT have had to rediscover?

I sometimes weep, thinking we might be so much better off today.
Atheist born and when I die, still an atheist...
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-26-2021, 03:10 AM)Free Wrote:
(05-26-2021, 02:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote: For example, if you have a 1st or early 2nd century writer who said that Jesus Christ was a wholesale myth,


Oh, PUH-LEEZE.  Give me a fucking break, Free.

Thanks to mobs of jesus freak thugs who burned down the libraries of antiquity because their fucking useless godboy couldn't stand the competition we have very little of what was written in antiquity.  We do know that there were some anti-xtian polemics if only because a couple of xtian writers made lame attempts to "refute" them.  But anyone who said "jesus is a myth.... and a stupid one at that" had his works burned by the ignorant mobs.

When you write shit like you did above you remind me of the definition of chutzpah...you know, a kid kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

You smugly sit there and say "well, this is all we have left so it MUST BE TRUE knowing full well that as the world collapsed into jesus-freak anarchy your precious holy horseshitters decided they'd make ten thousand copies of their bullshit and let the rest of it which survived the fires crumble into dust because it did not give due deference to fucking jesus.

Come on, man.  Cut the crap.

It's not crap. It's a 100% fully justified argument from silence. You have plenty of writers from the 1st and 2nd centuries who- if Jesus was a myth- would be expected to say something about it. But in fact, even those who opposed Christianity never, not even once, questioned the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as being an ordinary man. In fact, you have them saying exactly the opposite.

"Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where "the mother of Jesus" is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."

Seems like Celsus was getting his info about Jesus from what was widely known among the population.

It's totally crap.
You've mixed up two entirely different subjects.
People don't talk about people who didn't exist. It's not an argument from silence.
Who cared about a tiny nascent sub-cult of Jews ?
There is nothing in that quote from which to take your (made-up) fairy-tale, "widely known".
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-26-2021, 07:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(05-26-2021, 03:10 AM)Free Wrote:
(05-26-2021, 02:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, PUH-LEEZE.  Give me a fucking break, Free.

Thanks to mobs of jesus freak thugs who burned down the libraries of antiquity because their fucking useless godboy couldn't stand the competition we have very little of what was written in antiquity.  We do know that there were some anti-xtian polemics if only because a couple of xtian writers made lame attempts to "refute" them.  But anyone who said "jesus is a myth.... and a stupid one at that" had his works burned by the ignorant mobs.

When you write shit like you did above you remind me of the definition of chutzpah...you know, a kid kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

You smugly sit there and say "well, this is all we have left so it MUST BE TRUE knowing full well that as the world collapsed into jesus-freak anarchy your precious holy horseshitters decided they'd make ten thousand copies of their bullshit and let the rest of it which survived the fires crumble into dust because it did not give due deference to fucking jesus.

Come on, man.  Cut the crap.

It's not crap. It's a 100% fully justified argument from silence. You have plenty of writers from the 1st and 2nd centuries who- if Jesus was a myth- would be expected to say something about it. But in fact, even those who opposed Christianity never, not even once, questioned the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as being an ordinary man. In fact, you have them saying exactly the opposite.

"Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where "the mother of Jesus" is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."

Seems like Celsus was getting his info about Jesus from what was widely known among the population.

It's totally crap.
You've mixed up two entirely different subjects.
People don't talk about people who didn't exist. It's not an argument from silence.
Who cared about a tiny nascent sub-cult of Jews ?
There is nothing in that quote from which to take your (made-up) fairy-tale, "widely known".

EXCEPT ... they are speaking about Jesus as though he actually existed.

So ... you know ... there's that.

And there's plenty of info regarding Panthera and Jesus right HERE

So yeah ... there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus was the bastard child of some slut named Mary.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-26-2021, 08:09 PM)Free Wrote: EXCEPT ... they are speaking about Jesus as though he actually existed.

So ... you know ... there's that.

And there's plenty of info regarding Panthera and Jesus right HERE

So yeah ... there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus was the bastard child of some slut named Mary.

to play devils advocate here a little bit, from that wiki article itself:


"Raymond E. Brown states that the story of Panthera is a fanciful explanation of the birth of Jesus which includes very little historical evidence.

Celsus' wide-ranging criticism of Christianity included the assertions that Christians had forsaken the laws of their fathers, that their minds had been held captive by Jesus and that the teachings of Jesus included nothing new and were simply a repetition of the sayings of the Greek philosophers.

Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan state that given the antagonism of Celsus towards Christianity, his suggestion of the Roman parentage of Jesus might derive from the memory of Roman military operations suppressing a revolt at Sepphoris near Nazareth around the time of Jesus' birth. 

The "common legionary name" Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between "Panther" and the Greek word "Parthenos" meaning virgin."

so in short - there is "some" evidence as per what he personally says, but it may just be that he hates Christians and made it up, as very little is around to back up what he's said.

Edit to add:

From Rational wiki -
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pantera]

"Celsus had reason to slander

Celsus was extremely anti-Christian,[12][13][14] and may have fabricated the story to slander Jesus. Some have proposed that the choice of the name "Pantera" may have been a pun on parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.[15]

Admittedly, the words Pantera and parthenos do not come from the same linguistic roots. Another point against this idea is that Christian church fathers such as John of Damascus and Ephiphanius of Salamis took the name seriously, as a name for one of Jesus' ancestors (or a nickname for Jacob, the father of Joseph) according to Matthew's genealogy.[16] Even if false, the rumor shows one fact clearly: right from the start, non-Christians made fun of Jesus and of Christianity."
And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?
The following 2 users Like OakTree500's post:
  • Gwaithmir, Free
Reply

Crucifixion argument....
(05-27-2021, 08:55 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:
(05-26-2021, 08:09 PM)Free Wrote: EXCEPT ... they are speaking about Jesus as though he actually existed.

So ... you know ... there's that.

And there's plenty of info regarding Panthera and Jesus right HERE

So yeah ... there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus was the bastard child of some slut named Mary.

to play devils advocate here a little bit, from that wiki article itself:


"Raymond E. Brown states that the story of Panthera is a fanciful explanation of the birth of Jesus which includes very little historical evidence.

Celsus' wide-ranging criticism of Christianity included the assertions that Christians had forsaken the laws of their fathers, that their minds had been held captive by Jesus and that the teachings of Jesus included nothing new and were simply a repetition of the sayings of the Greek philosophers.

Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan state that given the antagonism of Celsus towards Christianity, his suggestion of the Roman parentage of Jesus might derive from the memory of Roman military operations suppressing a revolt at Sepphoris near Nazareth around the time of Jesus' birth. 

The "common legionary name" Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between "Panther" and the Greek word "Parthenos" meaning virgin."

so in short - there is "some" evidence as per what he personally says, but it may just be that he hates Christians and made it up, as very little is around to back up what he's said.

Edit to add:

From Rational wiki -
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pantera]

"Celsus had reason to slander

Celsus was extremely anti-Christian,[12][13][14] and may have fabricated the story to slander Jesus. Some have proposed that the choice of the name "Pantera" may have been a pun on parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.[15]

Admittedly, the words Pantera and parthenos do not come from the same linguistic roots. Another point against this idea is that Christian church fathers such as John of Damascus and Ephiphanius of Salamis took the name seriously, as a name for one of Jesus' ancestors (or a nickname for Jacob, the father of Joseph) according to Matthew's genealogy.[16] Even if false, the rumor shows one fact clearly: right from the start, non-Christians made fun of Jesus and of Christianity."

I don't actually have a disagreement with this, however my point was that even Celsus was speaking about Jesus as an historical human personage as opposed to the god-boy of the Christians. Even if what he heard about Jesus was just some rumor, what he says speaks to his belief in historicity.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • OakTree500
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)