« first day (782 days earlier)      last day (2452 days later) » 

1:19 AM
0
Q: Request for Tag Creation: Nestorianism, Chalcedonian, Monophysitism, Miaphysitism

Matthew MoisenI wish to request the creation of the following tags in whichever grammatical case is best: Nestorianism, Chalcedonian, Monophysitism, Miaphysitism. Apparently Chalcedonianism isn't a word. Thank you.

 
 
9 hours later…
10:44 AM
0
Q: What upvote/ downvote , question/ answer ratios do responsible senior users have?

pterandonI was just looking at my ratios. I'm sure one answer would be, "whatever the circumstances at the time dictated." But would anyone care to share or offer guideline?

 
 
11 hours later…
9:39 PM
scratch that question
Does Rome exist?
 
@Flimzy: Hi! First a clarification. When I say "nothing" I don't mean things like "the existence of Jerusalem". That would be silly.
 
Well then you shouldn't say things like that.
I agree, it is completely silly.
 
The New testament is about events.
 
The destruction of the temple is an event. There is evidence that it occurred.
It's in the New Testament.
The Roman occupation of Israel is an event mentioned in the New Testament.
 
OK, so then we are already done. You interpreted my comment under the assumption that I'm stupid or silly. I'm not. Misunderstanding clarified. :-)
 
9:40 PM
There is evidence of that.
I interpreted your STATEMENT as stupid. And I stand by that interpretation.
 
OK, fair enough. You caught me out.
 
For your statement to be meaningful, it must be far more specific.
 
If we call the roman occupation an event, then yes.
On the other hand, that event is not actually mentioned, it's just there as background.
 
It's mentioned indirectly many times.
"Walk the extra mile" etc, etc
 
And the Roman rulers are also people there are evidence of, yes.
But none of the others.
 
9:42 PM
Also not true.
There is significant evidence for the person of Jesus.
 
Oh, really?
 
Of course.
 
Shoot.
 
Perhaps not conclusive evidence.
But more than the "absolutely none" you suggest.
 
So, what is the inconclusive evidence then?
 
9:44 PM
Well, the New Testament itself is some. But many other historians have mentioned him. Josephus of course being the most famous non-Biblical historian to document Jesus.
And yes, I am aware of the many criticisims of Josephus and other historians.
But I'm not here to prove that Jesus exists.
Only that your claim that there is "no evidence" is completely bogus in every way.
The New Testament itself is evidence for the events described in the New Testament. Making your statement self-contradictory.
 
No, the New Testament is a book. It's not evidence of anything. Obviously I don't believe it's fictional, but in theory it could be.
 
You have a very odd definition of "evidence" then.
 
All other mentions of Jesus come after Christianity has become a significant religious group, and are hence not evidence.
 
Most people consider written history "evidence."
2
 
Nobody who actually ever met him has even written about it.
 
9:47 PM
@LennartRegebro That's also invalid reasoning.
 
Most people do not consider written text evidence.
 
0
Q: "I disagree with those people" is a bad answer

James TWe have had many answers that follow this pattern (using the unicorn theme from the about page): Q: Some people say that your unicorn's horn should be buffed gently with chamois in order to bring out the opalescent shimmer. Do they recommend this for all unicorns, or only those with rainbow m...

 
If I wait until a week after your birthday party to mention it, that doesn't mean you didn't have a birthday party.
It also doesn't mean my testimony isn't evidence.
It may call into question the reliability of my testimony...
 
Flimzy: No, but that you say you were on my birthday party doesn't mean I had one.
 
But it doesn't automatically render my testimony non-evidential.
No, but me saying I was there is evidence.
You seem to be confusing the concepts of evidence and proof
3
 
9:50 PM
Now you are getting technical and silly.
 
The New Testament itself is evidence of the New Testament. It's not sufficient evidence to consider the New Testament authentic, authoritative, accurate, or anything else interesting. But it IS EVIDENCE. The only way to deny that is to change definitions.
Quite the contrary.
 
And claiming that the New Testament is evidence of the New Testament is blatant nonsense.
 
You started out making a silly statement. If there was any silliness, it started with you.
Clearly not.
 
You are just trolling. Bye.
 
Cute. The troll left, citing trolling.
I guess the troll was "out-trolled."
 
9:53 PM
I really do find this sort of thing rather fascinating. Sorry to have just missed it.
It's amazing how quickly people reach to the most extreme position - that there is ZERO reason to believe Jesus existed, that we can NEVER know anything about the past, etc.
At least we did not get to the conspiracy theory that the whole thing is a deliberate fraud by the Roman Empire.
 
Or a weird astrology thing where Jesus was only a representation of the age of Aquarius or whatever. Really silly.
 
I wonder if there is any linguistic issue here. I read a book called "Experience, evidence, and sense" by Anna Wierzbicka, which posits among other things that the modern English-language concept of "evidence" carries a specific cultural weight that might not be the case for apparent parallels in other languages.
English "evidence" often means raw uninterpreted data, whereas eg Latin "evidentia" means something that is evident, obvious, undeniable.
The smoking gun kind of evidence.
The NT is certainly evidence in the sense of data. Because to say that it is not evidence means that the history and content of the documents have no bearing on the question of whether we should believe that Jesus existed. That would be an odd thing to say.
@fredsbend I don't think I've heard that one. I did hear the one where he was a Buddhist who was quite severely misunderstood.
 
10:17 PM
@JamesT Here up until 36:50. Really silly stuff.
At 36:30 it says that it is quite likely that Jesus didn't even exist.
 
@fredsbend title seems familiar - I think someone tried to get me to watch it because of some 9/11 conspiracy theory. I didn't know Jesus was involved.
 
11:14 PM
@JamesT There's three parts. The first is the religious part. The second is the financial institution part. I don't remember the third. I saw part two first and thought it was interesting and convincing. Then I saw part 1 and thought that if they are that stupid about the religious part they are likely just as stupid about the financial part.
 
11:58 PM
@fredsbend There should be a word for that double-take sensation you get when you realize the conversation is further down the rabbit hole than you thought. Like when you are having what you think is a normal chat about interest rates, or something, and the other person mentions that we're all controlled by lizards from space.
 

« first day (782 days earlier)      last day (2452 days later) »