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....
#51

Crucifixion argument....
(03-27-2021, 09:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Yeah, silly me.  I'm arguing with a Christian (online) over the lack of evidence that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be buried according to Jewish custom.   My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire.  Thus far there has only been one person found in a Jewish tomb from the 1st century who was  known to have been crucified.  Just one.  The Romans crucified upwards of at least 20,000 people and that's a very low estimate.  It's probably over 40,000 people.  So where are all those crucified people buried?

His argument is that forensic archaeologists when examining the bones from ancient family tombs and burial sites can't tell if a person has been crucified because the nails were removed so the evidence is gone.  Only one persons  body was found which shows signs of being crucified.  It still had the nail intact because the nail was bent and couldn't be removed so the Romans chopped off the lower part of his foot to remove the body from the cross.   The photo on the left is a modern take on how the nail went through the heal bone.  The one of the right is the actual foot with the nail in it.   

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F...ission.jpg]  

My contention is that forensic analysis could easily determine whether a nail had pearced the foot of a crucified person.  Roman nails were not small.  They would do a lot of damage, especially to the foot and it's 26 bones.  

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43...0x300.jpeg]

If anyone nailed that sucker in my foot it would do a lot of damage to the bones.  I can see that a large nail might - might-  miss the ulna bone in the arm however even that is pretty sketchy especially since they often hammered nail closer to the wrist where the bones are closer together.  The Romans somethimes tied the victim onto the cross beam with ropes so the arms weren't nailed.  But the foot. The foot would certainly receive a lot of damage and I would think that forensic archaeologists and other experts in this field would be able to spot this. 

His other argument is that Jewish burials were allowed during times of peace where as during times of war the crucified enemies were burned or thrown in a pit.  Yeah, sure.  I tried to find a time in history when Jerusalem was at peace.  I came up short. 

Of course we all know what this revolves around, don't we?  Whistling     Snark.  Was Jesus allowed a burial after crucifixion?  

It's kinda find it fun to argue with Christians about stuff like this especially around easter. I get to do a lot of research and learn new things about the ancient world.  It keeps my mind sharp.  Crazy but true.


Apparently they found the remains of another man in Italy back in 2007, who appears to have been put to death by crucifixion. This is the second grave were such remains were found after Yehoanon, son of Hagakol in Israel.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6453417/cr...ion-death/

I don’t know the exact details, but most likely this individual was a pirate, slave (servile class), or lowest freedman (humiliores) who was condemned to die this way.

Exactly whether you’d find remains of a lot of crucified people depends on a lot of factors, most likely what the local customs were for disposal of human remains, or how they handled the burial of convicted criminals or slaves.  Generally crucified prisoners were left to rot all the crosses after they had died, possibly to have the remains devoured by scavenger birds or other wild animals in search of a meal. Yes such there may never be much remaining of these people as a record that they existed.

As to whether a family could recover the remains of a dead prisoner executed in this manner, I guess it would be up to the local Roman government to grant or deny that request. The Bible claims that Pilate granted Joseph of Aremathea the rights to Jesus’ body after he was put to death.  This seems to be a reasonable possibility given what happened to Jehoanon’s remains, but I’m guessing it’s the exception and not the rule.
Her glory is like his glory
It's strong and true and good
You know she is a source of joy.
Her seed gives life and food.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IfduP2-tOZg/maxresdefault.jpg
Reply
#52

Crucifixion argument....
Quote:As to whether a family could recover the remains of a dead prisoner executed in this manner,


Slaves would rarely have had families who would have been in a position to petition the magistrates at all.  This guy was rolled into a hole and covered with dirt.  There is no indication of any ceremonial or even cultic burial ritual.  The impression here is one of speed being of the essence.  Most likely the body was stolen by a colleague or friend and buried quickly ( before the sun came up!)  The other possibility that springs to mind is that the body stunk to high heaven and they decided the point had been made when someone complained.   Someone living downwind.

BTW, the Joseph of Aramathea story is ludicrous.  Only xtian idiots would fall for it.


Again, Josephus tells the tale of recognizing three crucifixion victims on crosses and begging Titus to release them.  He did, but two died anyway, and I imagine the third was a shitty dancer for the rest of his life.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#53

Crucifixion argument....
(04-26-2021, 01:56 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:As to whether a family could recover the remains of a dead prisoner executed in this manner,


Slaves would rarely have had families who would have been in a position to petition the magistrates at all.  This guy was rolled into a hole and covered with dirt.  There is no indication of any ceremonial or even cultic burial ritual.  The impression here is one of speed being of the essence.  Most likely the body was stolen by a colleague or friend and buried quickly ( before the sun came up!)  The other possibility that springs to mind is that the body stunk to high heaven and they decided the point had been made when someone complained.   Someone living downwind.

BTW, the Joseph of Aramathea story is ludicrous.  Only xtian idiots would fall for it.


Again, Josephus tells the tale of recognizing three crucifixion victims on crosses and begging Titus to release them.  He did, but two died anyway, and I imagine the third was a shitty dancer for the rest of his life.

The historical Pilate and the Christian version of Pilate are two different characters.  It's highly doubtful that Pilate would suddenly have a change of heart and allow a nice little burial for Jesus.   There was no epiphany for this man.  He was finally removed by the Roman government for massacaring Samaritans. 

It's interesting how one small change in an old text can change history.   When Christians rewrote Pilate's character and shifted blame on the Jews as Jesus killers, it followed them for 2000 years resulting in their segregation into designated areas throughout Eruope which in turn made it easier for Hitler to round them up.    During the Black Plague of 1346 their segregated villages were burned to the ground because the separation from the mainstream cities kept them from getting the Plague. Christians figured  those evil Jesus killer weren't getting the plague because they were in cahoots with the Devil so they were murdered or forced to convert to Christianity.  Most committed suicide rather than convert.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist, Gwaithmir
Reply
#54

Crucifixion argument....
(03-27-2021, 09:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Yeah, silly me.  I'm arguing with a Christian (online) over the lack of evidence that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be buried according to Jewish custom.   My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire.  Thus far there has only been one person found in a Jewish tomb from the 1st century who was  known to have been crucified.  Just one.  The Romans crucified upwards of at least 20,000 people and that's a very low estimate.  It's probably over 40,000 people.  So where are all those crucified people buried?

His argument is that forensic archaeologists when examining the bones from ancient family tombs and burial sites can't tell if a person has been crucified because the nails were removed so the evidence is gone.  Only one persons  body was found which shows signs of being crucified.  It still had the nail intact because the nail was bent and couldn't be removed so the Romans chopped off the lower part of his foot to remove the body from the cross.   The photo on the left is a modern take on how the nail went through the heal bone.  The one of the right is the actual foot with the nail in it.   

Yes, he used a poor argument. It would have been much easier to simply attack your logic, which appears to be:

If A occurred at least one time,
Then A occurred many times

Which clearly doesn't hold up.
Reply
#55

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 02:03 PM)Percie Wrote:
(03-27-2021, 09:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Yeah, silly me.  I'm arguing with a Christian (online) over the lack of evidence that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be buried according to Jewish custom.   My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire.  Thus far there has only been one person found in a Jewish tomb from the 1st century who was  known to have been crucified.  Just one.  The Romans crucified upwards of at least 20,000 people and that's a very low estimate.  It's probably over 40,000 people.  So where are all those crucified people buried?

His argument is that forensic archaeologists when examining the bones from ancient family tombs and burial sites can't tell if a person has been crucified because the nails were removed so the evidence is gone.  Only one persons  body was found which shows signs of being crucified.  It still had the nail intact because the nail was bent and couldn't be removed so the Romans chopped off the lower part of his foot to remove the body from the cross.   The photo on the left is a modern take on how the nail went through the heal bone.  The one of the right is the actual foot with the nail in it.   

Yes, he used a poor argument. It would have been much easier to simply attack your logic, which appears to be:

If A occurred at least one time,
Then A occurred many times

Which clearly doesn't hold up.

Back so soon? Shaker's Law strikes again.

(01-03-2021, 04:08 PM)Percie Wrote: Yeah, I'm done with this site.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#56

Crucifixion argument....
I don't see four months as "so soon," but if it makes you happy, go for it!
Reply
#57

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 02:03 PM)Percie Wrote:
(03-27-2021, 09:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Yeah, silly me.  I'm arguing with a Christian (online) over the lack of evidence that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be buried according to Jewish custom.   My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire.  Thus far there has only been one person found in a Jewish tomb from the 1st century who was  known to have been crucified.  Just one.  The Romans crucified upwards of at least 20,000 people and that's a very low estimate.  It's probably over 40,000 people.  So where are all those crucified people buried?

His argument is that forensic archaeologists when examining the bones from ancient family tombs and burial sites can't tell if a person has been crucified because the nails were removed so the evidence is gone.  Only one persons  body was found which shows signs of being crucified.  It still had the nail intact because the nail was bent and couldn't be removed so the Romans chopped off the lower part of his foot to remove the body from the cross.   The photo on the left is a modern take on how the nail went through the heal bone.  The one of the right is the actual foot with the nail in it.   

Yes, he used a poor argument. It would have been much easier to simply attack your logic, which appears to be:

If A occurred at least one time,
Then A occurred many times

Which clearly doesn't hold up.

Well, that was HIS logic, not mine but I get your drift.  If burial of the crucified was allowed and common practice then the simple logic is that in the 30 to 40 thousand crucifixions that took place there should be a whole lot of more evidence of buried crucified people.   The whole burial of Jesus is a fantasy.  And I keep wondering why a god, who magically created the entire universe out of nothing, needed to move a big stone out of the way to get out of his tomb.  It's a plot device.  

If Jesus was wandering around Jerusalem after the crucifixion and was seen talking to crowds of people (500, or so Paul claims) the Romans would have made short order of him and twacked his head off.  No second trial or crucifixion.  Off with his head!!
                                                         T4618
Reply
#58

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 02:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Well, that was HIS logic, not mine but I get your drift.

It was your logic: "My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire."

Quote:If burial of the crucified was allowed and common practice then the simple logic is that in the 30 to 40 thousand crucifixions that took place there should be a whole lot of more evidence of buried crucified people.   The whole burial of Jesus is a fantasy.  And I keep wondering why a god, who magically created the entire universe out of nothing, needed to move a big stone out of the way to get out of his tomb.  It's a plot device.  

Here you add "and common practice" to make your point, but the Bible doesn't claim that it was common practice.
Reply
#59

Crucifixion argument....
The Bible doesn't "claim" anything.
The gospels are declarations of belief .. a unique form of literatuire.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...ion/story/
No one sat around reading gospels. The only reason we know about the ones we do (there were at least 200 gospels, each with their own
take on things), is because some resonated with certain communities, and they used  portions of them in their liturgical functions.

When there were many many gospels floating around, and Constantine decided to use religion as a political tool to unify his empire, (a well known *thing* ... Alexander did it, the Persians and Assyrians did it, eventually the Arabians did it), he told the church to cut down the number of gospels, just as at Nicaea (the council of .. in 325) he told them they had to agree on doctrine ... he didn't care *what* doctrine, but they had to come to agreement on something. The reason given for limiting the canonical gospels to four, was that there were four winds, and four pillars upon which the Earth stood, so ... of course there should be four gospels. Makes sense. Whistling
I am the Lord thy Dog. Thou shalt have no other dogs before me.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#60

Crucifixion argument....
D42, when you wonder what kind of clown believes this shit it is nice of Percie to appear to give you a demonstration!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu, Dancefortwo
Reply
#61

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 02:46 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 02:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Well, that was HIS logic, not mine but I get your drift.

It was your logic: "My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire."

Quote:If burial of the crucified was allowed and common practice then the simple logic is that in the 30 to 40 thousand crucifixions that took place there should be a whole lot of more evidence of buried crucified people.   The whole burial of Jesus is a fantasy.  And I keep wondering why a god, who magically created the entire universe out of nothing, needed to move a big stone out of the way to get out of his tomb.  It's a plot device.  

Here you add "and common practice" to make your point, but the Bible doesn't claim that it was common practice.

The Bible doesn't know shit.   Historians studying the subject know the Romans were crucifying people right and left and it is known that Pontius Pilate didn't give two shits about Jewish traditions.  He crucified a Jew on Passover.  Do you really think he'd suddenly make nice and allow a special little traditional Jewish funeral for this special little peasant while everyone elses bodies were thrown in a pit and burned?  How very convenient for the Jesus story.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#62

Crucifixion argument....
Quote:He was finally removed by the Roman government for massacaring Samaritans. 



That's Josephus' story.  Roman internal politics was probably of far greater importance in that decision.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#63

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 04:36 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: The Bible doesn't know shit.   Historians studying the subject know the Romans were crucifying people right and left and it is known that Pontius Pilate didn't give two shits about Jewish traditions.  He crucified a Jew on Passover.  Do you really think he'd suddenly make nice and allow a special little traditional Jewish funeral for this special little peasant while everyone elses bodies were thrown in a pit and burned?  How very convenient for the Jesus story.

This is fine, as it's only your opinion. I just object to people dressing up their opinions as valid logical arguments when they're clearly fallacious.
The following 1 user Likes Percie's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#64

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 02:14 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 02:03 PM)Percie Wrote:
(03-27-2021, 09:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Yeah, silly me.  I'm arguing with a Christian (online) over the lack of evidence that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be buried according to Jewish custom.   My contention is that if this was allowed there would certainly be many examples of crucified victims in the ongoing excavations of tombs in and around Jerusalem and throughout what was the Roman Empire.  Thus far there has only been one person found in a Jewish tomb from the 1st century who was  known to have been crucified.  Just one.  The Romans crucified upwards of at least 20,000 people and that's a very low estimate.  It's probably over 40,000 people.  So where are all those crucified people buried?

His argument is that forensic archaeologists when examining the bones from ancient family tombs and burial sites can't tell if a person has been crucified because the nails were removed so the evidence is gone.  Only one persons  body was found which shows signs of being crucified.  It still had the nail intact because the nail was bent and couldn't be removed so the Romans chopped off the lower part of his foot to remove the body from the cross.   The photo on the left is a modern take on how the nail went through the heal bone.  The one of the right is the actual foot with the nail in it.   

Yes, he used a poor argument. It would have been much easier to simply attack your logic, which appears to be:

If A occurred at least one time,
Then A occurred many times

Which clearly doesn't hold up.

Back so soon?  Shaker's Law strikes again.

(01-03-2021, 04:08 PM)Percie Wrote: Yeah, I'm done with this site.

Seems like yet another Christian who has failed their god's mission and has weak faith.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Sometimes you just have no words all you can do is laugh at the stupidity. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply
#65

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 05:00 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 04:36 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: The Bible doesn't know shit.   Historians studying the subject know the Romans were crucifying people right and left and it is known that Pontius Pilate didn't give two shits about Jewish traditions.  He crucified a Jew on Passover.  Do you really think he'd suddenly make nice and allow a special little traditional Jewish funeral for this special little peasant while everyone elses bodies were thrown in a pit and burned?  How very convenient for the Jesus story.

This is fine, as it's only your opinion. I just object to people dressing up their opinions as valid logical arguments when they're clearly fallacious.

It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice there should be many examples of it.  Archaeologists have unearthed literally thousands of graves, tombs and many ossuarie boxes in the Jerusalem and Near East area. 

 http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_en...ubj_id=227  

They have stepped up the work in the last decades as cities have grown.   Only one body was found that had been crucified and then buried.  And archaeologists cannot tell if the body was buried right away or had been left up on the cross for a length of time before taken down.   

The Jesus story doesn't work without a burial and Pontius Pilates character is historically know to be vastly different from what the Christians wrote.
                                                         T4618
Reply
#66

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice 

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.
The following 1 user Likes Percie's post:
  • Lion IRC
Reply
#67

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice...

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.
The following 1 user Likes Lion IRC's post:
  • Percie
Reply
#68

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice...

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.

Oh look, it's Lion. 

I know of them from TalkFreethought. Anyway, his only goal is to convert atheists to Christianity, and he makes a lot of really dumb arguments, none of which should be at all surprising to atheists who are knowledgable in this area.  Do with him what you will.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Sometimes you just have no words all you can do is laugh at the stupidity. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
The following 3 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Dancefortwo, Inkubus, Szuchow
Reply
#69

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice 

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

The bible is claiming a reality that doesn't exist.   People weren't buried after crucifixion and they certainly wouldn't have been allowed a burial by a Jew hating tyrant like Pontius Pilate.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Bucky Ball
Reply
#70

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice...

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.

Who the hell are you and why are you capitalizing the "H" in him and the "C" in crucifixion?  Do you think that capitalizing those particular words makes the bible true?
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#71

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 10:10 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote: As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.

Who the hell are you and why are you capitalizing the "H" in him and the "C" in crucifixion?  Do you think that capitalizing those particular words makes the bible true?

Yeah, he's an oddball, that one.  Tongue
Sometimes you just have no words all you can do is laugh at the stupidity. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
The following 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#72

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: ... The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional ...

Gett'n lazy with the caps there - it should be That Jesus so as to make clear it's not some other random Jesus; the noun person is referring to His Holiness so should be capitalized as well as its adjective "uncommon" so should read Uncommon Person (the additional adjective "extraordinary" is tautological so should be omitted); the use of "was" pertains to past tense and since Jesus still lives should be adjusted to present tense "is".  The Crucifixion is extraordinary in that unlike most crucifixions it failed and left Jesus still alive, not that it purportedly inflicted pain on a supernatural being impervious to anything material humans could possibly inflict (and therefore failed).  That Jesus has a lot answer for, such as creating Joseph Merrick, among countless other pointless long term miseries on innocent souls and if anyone aver does figure out how to punish That Holy F*&k'n Jackass in a manner that makes Him suffer equal to what he put His creations through it won't be too soon.
The following 2 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Inkubus, Dancefortwo
Reply
#73

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:38 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: It's not just opinion, it's simple logic.  Logic tells you that if burial after crucifixion was a common practice...

As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.

History makes no such claim.
There is no basis for history to make any such claim. History can't even demonstrate he actually existed.
In the Pax Romana, troublemakers were executed and thrown on a trash heap.
If there is a claim being made, it's a religious faith-based claim. The gospels are what they believed about him religiously, not what history tells anyone. History doesn't make those sorts of claims.
I am the Lord thy Dog. Thou shalt have no other dogs before me.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Dancefortwo, Gwaithmir
Reply
#74

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 10:10 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Who the hell are you...
 

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid296764

Quote: and why are you capitalizing the "H" in him and the "C" in crucifixion?  
 

Deferential reverence when referring to His Crucifixion.

Quote:Do you think that capitalizing those particular words makes the bible true?

Yes.
That's my working theory.
Upper Case Epistemics.
Italicised words are ontologically valid...
FONT SIZE trumps appeal to authority.
Bold CAPS lock beats argumentum ad populam....etc etc
You get the idea.
Reply
#75

Crucifixion argument....
(05-07-2021, 10:03 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 08:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Percie Wrote: As noted, the Bible doesn't claim that it was a common practice.

Exactly. 
It's quite the opposite. The historical claim is that Jesus was an extraordinarily uncommon person and that His Crucifixion was exceptional.

Oh look, it's Lion. 

I know of them from TalkFreethought. Anyway, his only goal is to convert atheists to Christianity, and he makes a lot of really dumb arguments, none of which should be at all surprising to atheists who are knowledgable in this area.  Do with him what you will.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker

I seem to remember someone of that similar name on TTA, pretty much doing what you say.
I am the Lord thy Dog. Thou shalt have no other dogs before me.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)