Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?

[AbhiKerala]

@pe7erpark3r Dude my point is we can all experience what we want. You want some reality where we are all creations ? Yeah you can have that if you believe it that deep. Why do you think the Bible asks you to believe in the first place.

[AbhiKerala]

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

You say I'm idiotic? Oh well let me be idiotic in Christ, it's far better than to be intelligent in the world.

I truly wish you all the best in your adventures with him.

[Kaneki-kun]

@Vex-Man I said search your heart not follow your heart. And Christians ( born again people in Christ) and the rest of the world truly don't know how to pray, but it doesn't mean they don't know who to say a prayer.

(What is prayer? Prayer normally is a communication between man and God. But the people doesn't even know that. They think prayer is making noise and jumping around in the name of God and prayer. God is in constant listening mode on every heart, as a matter of fact the bible says "our souls (thus our hearts) are the very heart beats of God. So If you just humble yourself and seek God with the heart and mind of a baby you will definitely see His presence in your life)

Now what that scripture means in saying Christians don't know how to pray is I) they don't know what to pray for and ii) don't have the words to please God with their prayers unless led by the Spirit of God.
That's why He (The Holy Spirit) intercedes for us before God. In other words, He shapes our (Christians, born again people in Christ) prayers to the form and format that is pleasing to God.

And I can testify to that, when I became a born again Christian I knew shit about prayer, I didn't even feel like saying a prayer. When everyone else was praying my eyes were just closed and I'd be like an illiterate, just listening to others praying or I'd say a little prayer and that's it.
But then as I grew in Christianity (living like Christ) through the Spirit of God and His teachings I began to know how to pray. And when the need to pray comes He tells me exactly what to pray for, He gives me the words.

PERSONALY I don't need anyone on here to believe or even listen to what I'm saying. But this is my experience, this is my experiment, I tested the waters and The Truth revealed itself to me. I don't even come from a Christian family first of all but this is my testimony. Whoever wishes to say is bs can say #freedomofspeech..

but know y'all should know this *1 John 4:2-3 Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. Let he who has an ear hears wisdom and seize from foolishness.

[Kaneki-kun]

@pe7erpark3r God isn't even the God of religion it's just society that labeled Him like that. But yeah I understand for the sake of this discussion you have to put it like that.

The thing is many people don't even know what's God's name (and even Christians and many religious leaders) so they confuse Him with so many stuffs and rubbish.

Following the teachings of the Holy Spirit, God (I Am is His name) never brought any religion, from the Old to New Testament there nowhere stating that and if there is show me.
It was people, as you can read through out the Old Testament "The people of God" and at that time everything was by the law, and there was nothing like grace as we see today, so just anybody couldnt come and claim he's a "pupil of God" and it had to be like that.

Then Jesus Christ came with Grace and it cancelled condemnation by the law. So from there we started hearing about Christians and Christianity which first was a mockery and insult labelling followers of the teachings of Jesus. Then as time went on it became known by all and became a religion, a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. And our times came where religion became the belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power and a particular system of faith and worship. And people thirsty for power took advantage of it to control, rule and cause harm to society with the help of the devil, the pupil's ignorance and laziness.

[Kaneki-kun]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@pe7erpark3r

I said kjv cuz compared to niv, nlt, and some translations there's no omission of verses. But yeah, when you experience Jesus and the Spirit of God personally into your life you don't need any philosopher, google, pastor or whatever to give you proves.

Yes, you should always get a translation that is close to the original! And if you want to compare biblehub.com's interlinear translation is a good place to get a feeling of what's really written in the original greek or hebrew text.

And just a note for @Vex-Man who always claims that we have no orginal of the bible: We have texts (in and out of the bible) that are 3000 years old and have been copied over the centuries. And the mistakes that are introduced over so many years are miniscule. So we can rely around 99.9% on the greek texts we have of the bible.

Bible says You need to believe to be able to see. Many of the world will know the Bible as much as Lucifer does and they'll derive philosophies from it whiles being led by false spirits. It's sad but it's OK, because unless you experience darkness you'll never acknowledged light. Because light IS and doesn't exist. People who live in clouds of darkness, conditioning and confusion if you tell them about The Light of the World they'll always tell you there's nothing like light because they don't know and don't even want to believe just a little bit something called 'Light' is ( "exist" in their terminology)

I wouldn't judge them so harshly. For believing is not the same as thinking. Believing is trust, and you need to learn trust, by trusting, by making experiences. If we could prove that God exists, they would not have won anything, but that now they think that God exists. But still they would not believe. And faith is what they really need.

Oh no I'm not judging them fam, I'm just saying the truth. I mean I don't think there's anything condemning in what I said

[spaceboy]

---

[the driver]

@Sij 100% agree with you.

[pe7erpark3r]

@AbhiKerala said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@pe7erpark3r Dude my point is we can all experience what we want. You want some reality where we are all creations ? Yeah you can have that if you believe it that deep. Why do you think the Bible asks you to believe in the first place.

I'm sorry, I said it in this agressive way. I do not want that reality. I did not believe in this reality. I made an experience I did not think possible: recognizing His Voice. And it happened to me out of the blue. It's not like I believed afterwards though, it took me quite a while to accept the reality that God is (3 years).

The bible teaches us to believe because only believing is what saves us. But to the bible believing is not believing "that God is" or that "Jesus is God". Believing is to let yourself be guided by God, who is Love. Believing is to let Him slowly change you, to become an Image of His goodness for our brothers and sisters. As you can see, I'm clearly still on the way and unworthy of this calling, more than unworthy. But He loves me, and out of this Love, out of His wish to save me, he touched my heart, and began to guide me toward Him.

He will do so with you too, if you only give Him an honest chance. He will speak to You, if you only lower your voice enough, if you do not cling to material goods, or your own gifts and position. He will speak. He will tell you of His love for you, He will speak of how He created you out of love, and to give you the Gift of Himself, of Love Himself. He will speak of peace and reconciliation in a world that is only out for war. He will speak of forgiveness, and of repaying evil with love. He will speak.

And the moment you hear His Voice, which always speaks gently and softly, and always full of love, even if it speaks of the disasters we bring upon ourself, then you will know. He will reveal His Holy Face to you, and free you from the burdon of sin. He will replace your gods and idols, may they be gods of a religion or money or fame, with Himself. He will enthrone Himself in your heart, and speak to you from then on. He will guide you ever closer, purifying you from every sin. If you repent He will hurry to you, to console you, to dress you in Himself and guide you to Heaven, which is to guide you in His Sacred Heart. Trust in Him, and He will never forsaken you, He will not fail you.

To fear God is the beginning of wisdom. To know Him is to know Love Himself. To possess Him is the greatest good, a good that will be given to you, here and now. Listen to the Voice of Love.

[Indrid Cold]

I skimmed these pages and @spaceboy should probably get most kudos just for staying on-topic. But I'm not criticizing. As a veteran of debates like these, I can confirm that everyone has their own hobby-horse to shoe-horn into the debate. Would we really have it any other way?

Me, I long ago had my head turned by the books of Barbara Thiering, whose forensic, ultra-scholarly writing took in both the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi and contemporary apocrypha, to suggest the J-Man was 'just' part of some Jewish-cult-to-end-all-Jewish-cults. The research not only seems detailed enough, but it also fits my personal level of pessimism about a tangible, interventionist God.

But if there's one thing I hate in religious debates (and sorry to the above users who've done it), it's when people draw a parallel between fictional characters like Batman, Spider-Man, etc, and Jesus / God. God, if He / It exists will necessarily transcend context. So if there's a story where Batman breaks down the fourth wall and boldy presumes to give the reader religious instructions (and even with the freak-out stories of Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, I don't think there has been), you can legitimately compare him to Jesus. But not until then.

Also, I stand with @AllAboutGay on the existence of The Gays in ancient antiquity. This prehistoric skelington has the same distinctive gap in his teeth as John Inman:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

Then Jesus Christ came with Grace and it cancelled condemnation by the law. So from there we started hearing about Christians and Christianity which first was a mockery and insult labelling followers of the teachings of Jesus. Then as time went on it became known by all and became a religion, a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. And our times came where religion became the belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power and a particular system of faith and worship. And people thirsty for power took advantage of it to control, rule and cause harm to society with the help of the devil, the pupil's ignorance and laziness.

I agree, that the belief in, as in thinking that God is, instead of true belief is false. But be careful not to judge the works of the Holy Spirit. In John 17:22-23:

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Jesus prays to the father for the unity of His disciples, so that the world may see, that Jesus is sent by the father. The world cannot see the works of the spirit, it cannot see the love in the hearts, for the world is unspiritual and guided by false spirits as you said correctly. The world can only recognize the outward unity of Jesus' true disciples. So for this prayer to be fullfilled we need to be united. Yes, true unity is in the heart, but what is in the heart will shine outwardly. Do listen to the Voice of God, for it calls out for unity and reconciliation. It is the Voice of Love, and if you really know His Voice in your heart, you will recognize Him too in His revelations of our times. Do not judge the way others worship our Lord, for you might be judging Him.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I skimmed these pages and @spaceboy should probably get most kudos just for staying on-topic. But I'm not criticizing. As a veteran of debates like these, I can confirm that everyone has their own hobby-horse to shoe-horn into the debate. Would we really have it any other way?

Who would not :joy:

Me, I long ago had my head turned by the books of Barbara Thiering, whose forensic, ultra-scholarly writing took in both the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi and contemporary apocrypha, to suggest the J-Man was 'just' part of some Jewish-cult-to-end-all-Jewish-cults. The research not only seems detailed enough, but it also fits my personal level of pessimism about a tangible, interventionist God.

But you have read up on her critics in the meantime, like a good boi(ntellectual) I suppose :yum:

But if there's one thing I hate in religious debates (and sorry to the above users who've done it), it's when people draw a parallel between fictional characters like Batman, Spider-Man, etc, and Jesus / God. God, if He / It exists will necessarily transcend context. So if there's a story where Batman breaks down the fourth wall and boldy presumes to give the reader religious instructions (and even with the freak-out stories of Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, I don't think there has been), you can legitimately compare him to Jesus. But not until then.

Good point yeah. Why do you always come up with points I'd never ever think of?

Also, I stand with @AllAboutGay on the existence of The Gays in ancient antiquity. This prehistoric skelington has the same distinctive gap in his teeth as John Inman:

I love your humor! And yeah, totally. Maybe we all descend from a gay couple after all...

[Indrid Cold]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

But you have read up on her critics in the meantime, like a good boi(ntellectual) I suppose

Well, look, of course. But besides that (permission to go off-topic?), I can't believe my position is unique: I'm less concerned about whether the miracles and preachings of Jesus really happened as much as that there's just anything, any story, that can distract us from the greedy, ugly vibe that pervades life on Earth. Y'know. If there was a religion that doted on Tina Charles songs, I'd be there.

[pe7erpark3r]

@spaceboy said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I mean @pe7erpark3r here and not an apostle. And my thoughts were relates about Jesus mentioning in early Christian's apocrypha. And the ideas of these texts are far different from the official version. Fog cannot appear without a fire. That make me think, that someone existed. Yeshua or maybe he had another name. Someone was crucified. It was very popular type of execution in Rome of those time. And the execution of these man, became a start point of Christianity religion. That what I mean under words 'Historical Jesus'.

A very good point, and I like the analogy (fog + fire).

P. S.: Unfortunately we won't know the truth about those events. I mean the real story-line, the real chain of events.. Maybe Zarathustra will know, or Abdul Alhazred.. But not we..

You will see, that there is quite a bit of evidence, that the ghospel's accounts (in large parts) are in fact historical, when the debate procedes. I hope @Vex-Man returns :sweat_smile:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

Here is what Josephus wrote-
18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the
truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when,
upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those
who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored
to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

First let me quote wikipedia on the testamonium flavianum:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum. Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration. The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.

I agree with this definition. I too am convinced, that Flavius Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah.

20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James...”
The point should be noted the phrase “was called Christ” is awful and some transcriber inserted it. The later lines which Josephs referred to Jesus was the son of Damneus. That sentences looks like a christian was hoping to prove that Jesus existed.

The phrase "who was called Christ" is a perfectly common phrase. And this is why (quoting wiki again:)

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.

Josephus, when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 AD, clearly must have known about christians, if not Jesus himself, since there is enough (archeological + other) evidence that they were present in israel. If he didn't mention christians at all, that would have to be considered unbelievable.

There was never ever a “tribe of Christians”

The name christian was first used in a derogatory way to denote the followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. With this in mind it becomes clear why Flavius Josephus – who did not believe in Christ to be the messiah – could use the term in this way. He too saw Jesus as a nobody, and he spoke in the language that the people of his time used. Tribe of Christians sounds rather derogatory in my ears, so it fits the idea.

If you did read his texts carefully, you would know his texts were out of the context. There was a paragraph around his texts and it really interrupts his story line. This is how next paragraph begins from, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder...". It was referred to the previous paragraph in which Pilate along with his soldiers did massacre of Jews in Jerusalem

In the whole chapter (and the paragraph before) Josephus speaks about Pilates' reign in Jerusalem, and the things he dealt with. Thus speaking about Jesus at this place makes perfect sense. And to introduce the next important event during Pilates' time with "About the same time..." makes perfect sense. Of course I acknowledge that "another sad calamity" might still belong to the christian addition. Also a backreference to two or three paragraphs before is a perfectly normal thing.

Josephus did write about minor-minor people of his time extensively. A single paragraph written on Messiah is impossible.

As said before, I do agree with the majority of scholars that Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah, nor consider him to be of great importance.

[Zack Williamson]

@spaceboy said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

My counter question to you- If Spiderman did not exist, why children or even adults talk about him now ?

Spiderman was appeared first in comics nearly 40 years ago, and we can discuss him now, because of mass media. Will he be so popular in 4019?

1962 plus 2000 = 3962. Yes, he may become the most famous character.

In classical logic, we call it argument from Popularity though.
Popularity of someone does not justify truth or reason.

Or maybe next crusade will be done in a name of Tony Stark? Who knows.. :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:

Those people who fought for the name of their religion, believed in lies. When they cannot and could not give any evidence for their supported beliefs, they initialized a fight. Your analogy is absurd here. People do not fight because spider-man has given a commandment for “I am true and other fictional characters are false.” Suppose a group of kids believe in spider-man only and second group believes in Batman only. The doctrine of spider man instructs his followers to fight and fight until the followers of other religions do not get ceased. (My last three sentences contain surah no 9 verse no 13 and 14 of the Koran; One commandment of Biblic God)

Muhammad lived nearly 1500 years ago, and people are speaking about him today.

Muhammad did not exist. There is no proof of his existence either. People are talking about harry potter too today.

Yeshua lived nearly 2000 years ago, and people are speaking about him today.

I say he did not. Prove me wrong ! People are talking about superman too today.

Siddhartha lived nearly 2500 years ago, and he is also well known.

Siddhartha existed as a person and he was a skeptic. He was neither a God nor a messenger of God. We are talking about a theist’s existence, not a skeptic’s. He himself rejected any fictional character or God.

I have a video for you (for most characters)-

Others also can be mentioned here in this list.

I like your last line- Others also can be mentioned here in this list. There were more than 10 deities of Egypt, Persia and Greece before the birth of Jesus. All those deities have same stories like Jesus.
Under the rule of Constantine, Faith-head Christians burnt off their teachings and did not let them to copy their books.

And those events were happened, when humanity have no ability to communicate so fast and worldwide as now,

100 percent true

but at the same time all these persons become world known. Personally for me it means, that the event had a historical-cultural weight, and persons which are related to these events can not be excluded, like a fictional characters.

Show me those historical-cultural evidences first. You have shown me only 2 writers, as far as I know- Josephus and Tacitus. Both were not even contemporary eye-witnesses for giving any evidence for Jesus existence who supposedly lived on our earth. There is around 100 years of Gap between their earliest writings and Jesus' alleged birth.

Nice points about Josephus and Tacitus, I like that. I wish to divein more in it.

Thank you.

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

As Peter mentioned, besides the Gospels at the beginning of the first century, there were lot's of apocrypha that were also based on the events that happened to Jesus. (Lately all this books were banned, by the church, but some of them have been saved to the present day. The Nag Hammadi library for example.)

Paul and Peter never referred to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha or any other pilgrim. Paul did not write about earthly existence, life and his teachings. The epistles which were the part of paul’s writing, were written after 48 CE. Both did not mention any type of miracle which worked, his trial, his virgin birth, his disciples or the empty tomb

I mean @pe7erpark3r here and not an apostle. And my thoughts were relates about Jesus mentioning in early Christian's apocrypha.

Christian’s apocrypha was written by his disciples, not by his messengers. We do not even know his disciples existed or not.

And the ideas of these texts are far different from the official version. Fog cannot appear without a fire.

Fog cannot appear without a fire through gaps. His first two disciples (peter and mark) supposedly existed a long time after Jesus’ death.

That make me think, that someone existed. Yeshua or maybe he had another name. Someone was crucified. It was very popular type of execution in Rome of those time. And the execution of these man, became a start point of Christianity religion. That what I mean under words 'Historical Jesus'.

Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus/Dionysus, Attis, Isis, Hermes, Romulus, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Zalmoxis, Tammuz, Asclepius, Krishna, and Prometheus.- All had same character like Jesus. Many of them were got died by violence and resurrected. One God among them might be existed. All had a divine mother and a divine father. All of them were tried to be killed by monsters/tyrants when they were infants. Many of above gods' birth was announced by their stars.

Adonis, Inanna, Osiris, Romulus, Zalmoxis --- got 'a type of baptism or communion', all 5 Gods won over their deaths, all 5 Gods were son or daughter of a God and they all predates Christianity. Even though all five were savior Gods and went thru struggles or thru sufferings.

Before the execution of Christians and in 4 to 5th centuries their scriptures were burnt. The Opponents and religion people of those Persian, Greek and Egypt mythologies and non-orthodox competing christian versions were compelled by threat of death and prison, or of dispossession to fall in line.

P. S.: Unfortunately we won't know the truth about those events. I mean the real story-line, the real chain of events.. Maybe Zarathustra will know, or Abdul Alhazred.. But not we..

Agree.

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate. You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

A negative sentence consists of ----------Does not, did not, may not, shall not, will not, were not, was not, was never, is never, is not, are not, am not, am never etc
A positive or affirmative sentence consists of --------Does, do, might, may, shall, will, can etc.

I also hope you will behave in a new debate. Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.
@AbhiKerala, @Indrid-Cold, @spaceboy, @Kaneki-kun, @Sij All 5 users behave with enough respect and manners.

P.S. if you dont know what a theistic god is, you cannot misinterpret anyone's position. You can ask me or you can look for Google. A 'Theistic god' is always related to philosophy, not to any specific religion. I was debating about philosopical god in that thread. In this debate, we had to debate jesus existed as a person or not. The problem with you is, you dont read between the lines and you always want to go ahead.

I never said Christ (as a person) did not exist with/without absolute certainty. We were debating Jesus as a person exist or not. We weren't debating Jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread. These are three different thesis. I hope you understand the difference among all 3 thesis. If you had presumed something into your mind, you would not have imposed your presumption on your opponent. My thesis for Mr. Jesus' existence will be-

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me [Edited: just like you misinterpreted I too misinterpreted]

[A Former User]

@AllAboutGay I thought you were going to explain a theory about Jesus being gay. XD 👍

[Zack Williamson]

@Indrid-Cold said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I skimmed these pages and @spaceboy should probably get most kudos just for staying on-topic. But I'm not criticizing. As a veteran of debates like these, I can confirm that everyone has their own hobby-horse to shoe-horn into the debate. Would we really have it any other way?

Me, I long ago had my head turned by the books of Barbara Thiering, whose forensic, ultra-scholarly writing took in both the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi and contemporary apocrypha, to suggest the J-Man was 'just' part of some Jewish-cult-to-end-all-Jewish-cults. The research not only seems detailed enough, but it also fits my personal level of pessimism about a tangible, interventionist God.

But if there's one thing I hate in religious debates (and sorry to the above users who've done it), it's when people draw a parallel between fictional characters like Batman, Spider-Man, etc, and Jesus / God. God, if He / It exists will necessarily transcend context. So if there's a story where Batman breaks down the fourth wall and boldy presumes to give the reader religious instructions (and even with the freak-out stories of Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, I don't think there has been), you can legitimately compare him to Jesus. But not until then.

In the Bible, Yahweh (not Jesus) gives instructions to others. Jesus was the last Adam and was created by Yahweh.
Batman is instructed by me in Gotham series game. I compared Batman with Jesus, not with Yahweh. My analogy is still in the context. By the way, God punished Bruce Wayne's parents and destructed Krypton for blasphemy and heathens for defying him. "Thou shouldst have used thine prep time to pray!"

Here have a meme

[pe7erpark3r]

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate.

I assumed the rules of the debate to be the same as for the last one. We talked about debate rules in the PMs and in our last discussions.

If you feel I am not adhering to the general principles of a friendly debate, you always are free to correct me, as you did. I saw my mistake and thus apologized and corrected my error. You can also always ask me to change the tone, or use less words, or anything that improves our discussion mid-way. Not everything needs to be defined rule by rule as we do in germany. I'm not here to debate about debating. I will always try to adapt and change what I can make better, even in the middle of a discussion. I'll adhere to new rules if you introduce them mid-debate and I agree with them. This makes discussions like these here possible in the first place.

You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

When I started this debate and I wrote down your position as I had understood it from your PMs to me. You are always free to correct me. I will change your position on any topic I make. However you did take indeed the position I wrote down as yours. This is a quote from your first reply, which anybody can look up who does not believe me (and in case you think about changing it now, there is a menu button under which one can see the history of a post). It's on page 1 of this thread:

I hold the position that Jesus was a fictional character.

This was your position. Now you changed it to

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me

Please refrain from insulting me either, by saying I impose something on you. You can always correct me, if I have missunderstood you. I will apologize when I do something wrong, as I have done. But I have not imposed anything.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

An Affirmative claim, is not the same as an affirmative sentence. You can formulate an affirmative claim as a negative sentence. "Jesus did not exist" is a negative sentence but an affermative claim. This is basically what the article you sent me explains.

It took me a while to understand this myself, but along with @spaceboy's great analogy it makes sense now: The existence of the largest column of smoke in the history of humanity (Christianity), implies that there was a fire. Thus saying "The fire was not real" (= Jesus is not a historical person) is an active claim, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming this.

This is similarly true for "That there was a fire is impropable" (= the existence of Jesus as a person is impropable).

We weren't debating jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread.

I did not impose anything on you: we were indeed debating the historical existence of Jesus as a human being. When I used religious language to talk about the religious God, I was only replying to other users in this thread. Since we cannot limit who can reply to a topic, we cannot do anything against other's going off-topic. You will note however if you read carefully again, that in my replies to only you I stayed on-topic.

As a sidenote: I hope you can see, that if I could show you the existence of Jesus as God, I would have given you strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person. This argument, given by @Kaneki-kun is a rational argument too, that should not be ignored. Nonetheless I concede, that I cannot prove the existence of Jesus as God to you in a logical way. You can only experience Him. Thus I did not introduce this argument into the debate, and I do not expect you to answer to what @Kaneki-kun or I wrote.

Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.

• I used a single insulting word close to the beginning of the debate and I apologized.
• This is an exaggeration. Exaggeration is not something an intellectual should do: I insulted you once, just once, without any need to for it.
• I was wrong, I had no reason to use this word, I apologized and I apologize again now.

[AbhiKerala]

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I also hope you will behave in a new debate. Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.
@AbhiKerala, @Indrid-Cold, @spaceboy, @Kaneki-kun, @Sij All 5 users behave with enough respect and manners.

I'm sorry If I have acted without respect. Good luck to everyone.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate.

I assumed the rules of the debate to be the same as for the last one. We talked about debate rules in the PMs and in our last discussions.

You did not say to me and suddenly you made one topic. You eagerly made one. You never said I am going to make a topic in which my/your rule/(s) is/are same as previous. However the maint point is, you misinterpreted my position with absolute certainty . You chose correct position of mine when you made this thread.

I hope you wont do that in future. I too promise I wont misinterpret my position.

If you feel I am not adhering to the general principles of a friendly debate, you always are free to correct me, as you did. I saw my mistake and thus apologized and corrected my error. You can also always ask me to change the tone, or use less words, or anything that improves our discussion mid-way. Not everything needs to be defined rule by rule as we do in germany. I'm not here to debate about debating. I will always try to adapt and change what I can make better, even in the middle of a discussion. I'll adhere to new rules if you introduce them mid-debate and I agree with them. This makes discussions like these here possible in the first place.

You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

When I started this debate and I wrote down your position as I had understood it from your PMs to me. You are always free to correct me. I will change your position on any topic I make. However you did take indeed the position I wrote down as yours. This is a quote from your first reply, which anybody can look up who does not believe me (and in case you think about changing it now, there is a menu button under which one can see the history of a post). It's on page 1 of this thread:

As I have said, you eagerly started one. You sounded to be so curious. And I am not saying you did not write my position as it is. You wrote whatever I said in pm- true.

I hold the position that Jesus was a fictional character.

This was your position. Now you changed it to

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me

Please refrain from insulting me either, by saying I impose something on you. You can always correct me, if I have missunderstood you. I will apologize when I do something wrong, as I have done. But I have not imposed anything.

Vex-Man is of the opinion, that Jesus was not a historical person.- It is a negative position of mine (according to you)
^ Your first reply in this thread. However you say it is a positive claim, but it is not.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

An Affirmative claim, is not the same as an affirmative sentence. You can formulate an affirmative claim as a negative sentence. "Jesus did not exist" is a negative sentence but an affirmative claim. This is basically what the article you sent me explains.

You did not choose your thesis, "Jesus was not a fictional character". 'Jesus does not exist' is a negative claim and a negative sentence. You can formulate whatever you want, it is not about your belief.

It took me a while to understand this myself, but along with @spaceboy's great analogy it makes sense now: The existence of the largest column of smoke in the history of humanity (Christianity), implies that there was a fire. Thus saying "The fire was not real" (= Jesus is not a historical person) is an active claim, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming this.

I said there should be no gap between fire and smoke. Did not you read that ? Life of his first two disciples (peter and other one )and Mr. Jesus' death has a long gap. We call it argument from ignorance. We do not even know his disciples existed or not. Here is a logical proof-
Premise 1- It is perceived that fire is not caused by fire
Premise 2- Mr. Space boy says smoke comes from fire.
Conclusion- Fire must have a cause too.

This is similarly true for "That there was a fire is impropable" (= the existence of Jesus as a person is impropable).

Improbable*
And it is not my new thesis. I have just interpreted my thesis which you misinterpreted earlier. You misinterpreted my thesis and I interpreted more :joy:

We call it argument from ignorance. Thank you. Fog can come from fire without gaps only. There must be no gap. I said "improbable" because you misinterpreted my position "it is insane to say that 95 percent people did not exist with absolute certainty." -your reply to me.

- You tagged me in this post and wrote absolute certainty. I proved that a philosophical God did not exist in that philosophical debate. EDIT- I hoped that you might have misunderstood me.

Of course people who historical existed or not, include your 'Jesus'.

We weren't debating jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread.

I did not impose anything on you: we were indeed debating the historical existence of Jesus as a human being. When I used religious language to talk about the religious God, I was only replying to other users in this thread. Since we cannot limit who can reply to a topic, we cannot do anything against other's going off-topic. You will note however if you read carefully again, that in my replies to only you I stayed on-topic.

You chose my thesis without letting me reply to your pm. You were so curious to make a topic. You could ask me, "Vex what your actual position will be in a new debate ?". But you did not.

As a sidenote: I hope you can see, that if I could show you the existence of Jesus as God, I would have given you strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person. This argument, given by @Kaneki-kun is a rational argument too, that should not be ignored. Nonetheless I concede, that I cannot prove the existence of Jesus as God to you in a logical way. You can only experience
Him. Thus I did not introduce this argument into the debate, and I do not expect you to answer to what @Kaneki-kun or I wrote.

Where it is ? Which post I should reply ?

Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.

• I used a single insulting word close to the beginning of the debate and I apologized.
• This is an exaggeration. Exaggeration is not something an intellectual should do: I insulted you once, just once, without any need to for it.
• I was wrong, I had no reason to use this word, I apologized and I apologize again now.

It is not about personal offenses or not. Even though you thought in your mind that rules of previous debate will be same in future, you violated your own rule. If you want me to stick with my thesis with/without interpretation "Jesus was a fictional character". I will. It is indeed a negative claim because it is claimed for non-existence of someone.

However you too have to stick your position for "Jesus was a historical figure'. your thesis is indeed affirmative. I kept in my mind, "whoever does not follow his own rules, will be disqualified. how it feels when I don't say it to someone ?

Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something. Negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false. Negative claims may have a positive counterpoint that asserts the existence or inclusion of something and which requires evidence to verify that the claim is true. Quoted from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_negative_claims

I say Jesus is fictional character - Affirmative sentence but it is all talking about non-existence of him.
Your thesis- "Jesus was indeed a historical figure" your claim is talking about his existence. You hold the burden of proof because you were claiming that he exists. You are not claiming about his non-existence.

My thesis are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false.

Rules should be followed strictly or they wont be called rules. You cannot apologize and cannot break your own rules either in this debate or that debate.