Well I just gave you a very direct and clear answer. Why did you think it was not answer?
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
Well I just gave you a very direct and clear answer. Why did you think it was not answer?
Belz...
Fiend God
I asked you if it was a belief or not. For the second time.
It was a question - I asked you if what you were calling evidence in this post that you want me to read, is in fact yet again something you have taken from the biblical writing.
Well, is it? Is the bible the source of your "evidence" of a human Jesus?
Have a really nice day!
And I told you in direct answer to that - if you say you are only "leaning" in the direction of thinking that Jesus may be real, then that only appears to be a statement of you saying that you are thinking that perhaps he might be real, but you are not prepared to say anything more positive than that ... “might be real, might not be, but would not put any positive value on any such leaning”.
What do you actually mean by the word “leaning” when saying your opinion is “leaning” in a particular direction?
It sounds to me as if you are trying to use the vague and subjective nature of that word “leaning”, as a fudge word here.
Opinions do not really “lean” anywhere. That is just a figure of speech. It’s just used as a way of making a vague and non-committal comment on something.
If you mean that your “leaning” is specifically on the positive side of belief (as in 60-40, or any such figure), then that is a statement of belief. Eg, if you said you were leaning 60-40 in favour of belief, then that is a statement of positive belief. It means that you believe he did exist (albeit whilst retaining serious doubts about it).
OK, so I take it that your source of claimed evidence was in fact the bible. In which case, we have been over that several hundred times already in these HJ threads.
I'd like to know what difference it makes to you.
If Belz... now decides that your arguments have actually convinced him that there definitely was a Human Jesus around whom the stories grew, how does that affect your arguments?
Or vice versa.
Convincing one person is irrelevant either way, when you are trying to subvert the dominant paradigm.
You've got to get started on the details of how this MJ managed to convince so many people if there never was a HJ. You haven't done that yet.
The HJ theory has a man to fill that gap, what have you got?
Belz...
Fiend God
That's neither a yes nor a no. 60% was replaced by the equivalent "leaning towards", which the number was meant to illustrate from the get-go.
Either answer the question, or don't, but don't pretend to answer it when you don't.
You do not understand that a probability of 70% is not derived from guessing. You need data.
Belz said:
You have confirmed that you did not realize that DATA IS NEEDED to say that there is a 60% probability for the existence of Jesus.
There is no data presently available to produce a 60% probability for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Belz said:
Your own words refer to you, "That's another lie. Two by you, now.
The HJ theory has no evidence for the man---the man is a Myth.
HJ is modern myth.
Jesus the Zealot--a modern myth.
Jesus the Cynic--a modern myth.
Jesus the Apocalyptic--a modern myth.
Is the word "myth" causing you problems?
Do you sometimes wake at night in a cold sweat screaming "MYTH!!" at the moon?
I suggest a glass of warm milk before bedtime.
Leave the myths alone and explain how Christianity came into being.
Saying "It's all fake" is not an answer. I want details.
Witty title!
Belz...
Fiend God
No you don't. You can guess percentages. But this isn't even what I was doing: I was illustrating that I was leaning slightly to one side of the issue.
That you do not understand this most basic concept of numbers is quite interesting.
Why do you keep using grade school-level argument, as if repeating them over and over will somehow make you more credible ? You have lost all credibility when you decided to lie.
Of course it was an answer. In fact I gave the same answer several times to you now in successive posts. Why don't you think it was an answer?
Look - if you try to replace the specific value of 60% by a non-specific and extremely vague term such as "leaning", then in all honesty what you should have said was that you were leaning 60-40 in favour of believing Jesus was real. In which case, as I have said before (and as dejudge pointed out to you before), that would be a statement of belief in a real Jesus.
If you want to omit all mention of any actual figures and just say something like "I am leaning that way", then as I said to you before, that immediately brings up the question of what you actually meant by that word "leaning" and whether any such "leaning towards belief in Jesus" is based on evidence of a human Jesus? What evidence are you using to "lean" towards belief in Jesus? ...
... or is it a belief drawn from something other than actual evidence?
When you talk about “leaning” towards anything, that is expressing a tendency to move towards some actual conclusion or position, but where you are not yet at the stage of having reached that conclusion or position. Whereas, in contrast, if you say as you’d did previously, that you are 60-40 convinced of Jesus, that is a very different statement of actually having arrived at that particular conclusion or position …
... putting any numerical value on it (other than the completely null position of 50-50) means you have arrived at a particular conclusion ….. whereas, talking about “leaning” towards any such probabilistic conclusion, is stating a tendency or potential to move in that direction, but without having either arrived at that concluding stage or saying that you have travelled any particular way towards it.
Take anything you like, if you've decided not to read what I wrote. If you did read it, you would know what it's source was, and how it dealt with the question of evidence. But that's up to you. And if you ever do want to go over something several hundred times, perhaps dejudge could help you out with that.
Last edited:
But that doesn't explain how you get from false belief about Jesus of the Bible to the idea of a possible flesh and blood and Jesus not existing.
Last edited:
Do you wa, wan, want to come back, to my place: Bouncy bouncy?
I told you already you cannot guess the percentage of Probability. You need Data.
Belz said:
You are repeating the same logical fallacies. You claimed everyone agrees the evidence is Terrible for HJ, that it is very weak and that you are not convinced and then turn around and admit you are 60-40 for HJ which is the result of guessing.
Plus, you really have no evidence for HJ.
It was a fallacy that the evidence was terrible and very weak. It was NON-EXISTENT.
Please, your argument is way below grade school level.
Another overly broad statement that is NOT true as anyone who has watched Mythbusters can confirm.
"7 Myths Mythbusters Proved That We Still Can't Believe Are True"
Any "Confirmed" result
You are not helping the Christ Myth cause with these overly broad statements that can easily be disproven.
- Status