Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,198
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There were no Christians until Paul invented Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, and his followers were a Jewish cult.my inicial response to this, and I mean no disrespect by this, was duh!!!! If all the early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine, they would not have crucified Him, or turned Him over to the authorities.
So, a statue of Zeus is evidence that Zeus existed? An amulet shaped like Thors hammer from a Viking burial mound is evidence for the existence of Thor? "Steamboat Willie" is evidence for the existence of Mickey Mouse?but it (the mosaic) is evidence that he existed.
And even by the accounts of the gospels it was not his followers that tortured him and turned him over to the authorities. It was the sanhedrin that turned him over to the Roman authorities, and the Romans who tortured and executed him.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.So what you are arguing is that if I claim to be a monkey, evidencing that I can't make that claim if I am a monkey, is not going to help us know if I am a monkey or not....okay...I don't agree, but okay... your opinion doesn't have to be logical in order to be your opinion.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.So what you are arguing is that if I claim to be a monkey, evidencing that I can't make that claim if I am a monkey, is not going to help us know if I am a monkey or not....okay...I don't agree, but okay... your opinion doesn't have to be logical in order to be your opinion.
all you are doing is dismissing the evidence as I said you would do....no problem, that is your right, we all base our conclusions on the premises we bring...when asked repeatedly for what you would call evidence, you gave nothing that would be possible for the time period we are talking about, so showing you evidence would never satisfy you, since you can't even tell us what you consider evidence.
"ev·i·dence ( ev·i·dence ( v -d ns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence."
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
That is correct. Most people do not use evidence to determine their beliefs.see above, without knowing what you would classify as evidence, no one can provide evidence to you. What I presented is the evidence that most people accept and use to determine their beliefs.
I cannot provide what doesnt exist. There is as much evidence, and no more, for Jesus, as there is for Zeus, Tammuz, Osiris, Bacchus, or Sol Invictus. Do you find that the evidence for the existence of Tammus is convincing, or would you dismiss it as unconvincing?You dismiss it all but provide nothing that you would accept as evidence from the time period.
The mosaic was evidence that people worshipped Jesus. Statues of Apollo are evidence that people worshipped Apollo. Mosaics and statues of Jesus and Apollo are not evidence that Jesus or Apollo actually existed, and were divine. See the difference?In other words, you set yourself up to dismiss all evidence by not being forthright and telling us what you would accept as evidence. If you do a quick websearch, you will see that the things I presented to you are evidences that are available from the time period, for the existance of anyone from the time.
 
 
 
Upvote
0