Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Pay attention. I'll say this one more time: Events in a person's life are not analogous to life itself. This is so typical of you: You equivocate by trying to redefine existence by conflating events with existence.

I think you need to get your Merriam-Webster and look up the definitions of "analogous" and "conflate."

YouTube

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The docetics didn't question Jesus' existence; they questioned his FORM of existence.

Moving the goalposts. There are only two possibilities as to the nature of that form: natural or supernatural. If the claim is that his form was supernatural then by definition that claim cannot be tested. The Christian claim is that his form was natural (he became flesh). They questioned that.

I question whether there was ever a natural, flesh and blood person named Jesus who was the founder of the Christian religion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Moving the goalposts. There are only two possibilities as to the nature of that form: natural or supernatural. If the claim is that his form was supernatural then by definition that claim cannot be tested. The Christian claim is that his form was natural (he became flesh). They questioned that.

I question whether there was ever a natural, flesh and blood person named Jesus who was the founder of the Christian religion.

Right. You have always questioned his existence. But in the ancient world of Gnosticism, they questioned Jesus's form of existence. VERY MUCH UNLIKE YOU, they believed in the supernatural. Notice carefully what John said about their heresy:

2 John 7
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
NIV

Note carefully that these deceivers did not deny Jesus coming into the world. The verb "coming" is qualified with the phrase "in the flesh". If John meant to say that these deceivers denied that Jesus ever came into the world at all, he would not have qualified the verb. He would have simply wrote, "May deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus as coming, have gone out in the world." This type of language would have certainly cast doubt upon Jesus' existence.

But there is more proof that these docetics-gnostics did not question Christ's existence. Go educate yourself and research the Gnostic Gospels. Here...I'll even give you a leg up!

http://www.searchingthescriptures.ne...cism_jesus.htm

You are appealing to this ancient group's heresy regarding their belief about the nature of matter and trying to spin it to mean they questioned Jesus' very existence, which is the farthest thing from the truth. You, sir, are the one moving the goalposts! This is typical of you -- your S.O.P.!

It's time to move on...you're shooting blanks again.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Right. You have always questioned his existence. But in the ancient world of Gnosticism, they questioned Jesus's form of existence. VERY MUCH UNLIKE YOU, they believed in the supernatural. Notice carefully what John said about their heresy:

2 John 7
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
NIV

Note carefully that these deceivers did not deny Jesus coming into the world. The verb "coming" is qualified with the phrase "in the flesh". If John meant to say that these deceivers denied that Jesus ever came into the world at all, he would not have qualified the verb. He would have simply wrote, "May deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus as coming, have gone out in the world." This type of language would have certainly cast doubt upon Jesus' existence.

But there is more proof that these docetics-gnostics did not question Christ's existence. Go educate yourself and research the Gnostic Gospels. Here...I'll even give you a leg up!

http://www.searchingthescriptures.ne...cism_jesus.htm

You are appealing to this ancient group's heresy regarding their belief about the nature of matter and trying to spin it to mean they questioned Jesus' very existence, which is the farthest thing from the truth. You, sir, are the one moving the goalposts! This is typical of you -- your S.O.P.!

It's time to move on...you're shooting blanks again.

If the Gnostics were the "antichrists", for harboring "heretical" beliefs about the nature of Jesus...then, how do we categorize the "devout" Christian groups that persecuted and sought to destroy them? Were these "devout Christians" doing the "Lord's work"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

VERY MUCH UNLIKE YOU, they believed in the supernatural.

Why should I care what they believed? What relevance do their beliefs have in regards to my argument? They may have believed the earth is flat. So what?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why should I care what they believed? What relevance do their beliefs have in regards to my argument? They may have believed the earth is flat. So what?

You should care because you appealed to them, as being like you, i.e. unbelievers in Christ's existence. But the historical fact is: They were NOT like you!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the Gnostics were the "antichrists", for harboring "heretical" beliefs about the nature of Jesus...then, how do we categorize the "devout" Christian groups that persecuted and sought to destroy them? Were these "devout Christians" doing the "Lord's work"?

Where is the historical record that Christians persecuted those Gnostics? But even if there is a record, those professing Christians were acting in disobedience to the Law of Christ.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You should care because you appealed to them, as being like you, ...

No, no, no! Fallacy of False Equivalence! You asked for an example of mysticist beliefs in ancient times and I gave you one. That's as far as it goes.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally, by denying Christ's existence you've been living in the "land of woo" for a very long time.

Not it the least. The definition of woo is "dubiously or outlandishly mystical, supernatural or unscientific." Look it up.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, no, no! Fallacy of False Equivalence! You asked for an example of sicmysticist beliefs in ancient times and I gave you one. That's as far as it goes.

And just what kind of beliefs would they be?

But why do you have to resort to lies? I never asked for any such thing. I asked for any credible ancient source that actually denied the existence of Christ. So, what do you give me instead? You appealed to a a first century heretical group who denied the physicality of Christ and try to tell us that that kind of denial is equivalent to an outright denial of his existence -- even though they concocted their own versions of the gospels that spoke to this non-existent person's alleged teachings! And then you have the unmitigated chutzpah to accuse me of the fallacy of false equivalency?

I'm beginning to think you and Hcap were joined at the hip at birth.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I never asked for any such thing. I asked for any credible ancient source that actually denied the existence of Christ.

In #3921 you wrote

And you have yet to produce on[sic] ancient writing that called Jesus' existence into question.

I let the word "on" stand as you wrote it. I take it that you intended "one" or "an".


I paraphrased this as "an example of mysticist beliefs in ancient times". You paraphrased it as "any credible ancient source". Neither is an exact quote of what you wrote but you choose to label my paraphrase a lie while ignoring the same fault in your own. That's equivocation.


In previous posts the definition of "argument" came up. There is an additional definition..

argument : quarrel

Is that what you want this thread to come down to, a quarrel? I do not. It seems that you do.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In #3921 you wroteI let the word "on" stand as you wrote it. I take it that you intended "one" or "an".


I paraphrased this as "an example of mysticist beliefs in ancient times". You paraphrased it as "any credible ancient source". Neither is an exact quote of what you wrote but you choose to label my paraphrase a lie while ignoring the same fault in your own. That's equivocation.


In previous posts the definition of "argument" came up. There is an additional definition..

argument : quarrel

Is that what you want this thread to come down to, a quarrel? I do not. It seems that you do.

Well, those "mysticist" beliefs (whatever that means) doesn't coincide with yours in terms of what you believe about Jesus' existence. Again...the Gnostics certainly believed Jesus existed -- that he came into this world and taught spiritual truth. What they did not believe, due to their beliefs about the evil nature of matter, was that he came into this world as a flesh and blood human being. Therefore, you still haven't provided any credible evidence that anyone in the ancient world actually denied Jesus' existence.

And, yes, you distorted badly what I asked for. You could have appealed to any secular, irreligious figure's take on Jesus' existence. But you chose to appeal to a religious group's heretical belief; and then to make matters worse tried to equate their heresy with your atheism and your outright denial of Jesus' existence. So...don't put your lousy choice on me or put words into my mouth.

[boxcar]

Christians continue to be oppressed as States suppress religion freedom. Sooner or later, this nonsense has to make it to the Supreme Court.

Christian Filmmakers Must Work Gay Weddings Despite Religious Beliefs, Minnesota Court Rules

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ch...rce=newsletter

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, those "mysticist" beliefs (whatever that means) ...

mythicist : an adherent of the view that apparently supernatural persons or events have their origin in human imagination especially as revealed in myth.

Sorry for the misspelling.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... doesn't coincide with yours in terms of what you believe about Jesus' existence. Again...the Gnostics certainly believed Jesus existed -- that he came into this world and taught spiritual truth. What they did not believe, due to their beliefs about the evil nature of matter, was that he came into this world as a flesh and blood human being.

Thus they fit the definition of mythicist.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Therefore, you still haven't provided any credible evidence that anyone in the ancient world actually denied Jesus'.

They denied that he was flesh and blood. They also denied that he suffered. Is not that the whole point of Christianity, that he "became flesh" and "suffered" so that sinful man would not have to?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And, yes, you distorted badly what I asked for.

What you asked for is a matter of record. Anyone reading this can easily find your post. Let them decide if I distorted anything. You should have been more precise but instead you made some flippant remark and are now crying over someone interpreting it as it stands.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You could have appealed to any secular, irreligious figure's take on Jesus' existence.

I think I have done that. I'll take this as an invitation to do it more often.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you chose to appeal to a religious group's heretical belief; and then to make matters worse tried to equate their heresy with your atheism and your outright denial of Jesus' existence.

I simply gave you what you asked for. I rest my case. Let a "candid world" judge.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...don't put your lousy choice on me or put words into my mouth.

You put the words into your own mouth. They are there for all to see.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

mythicist : an adherent of the view that apparently supernatural persons or events have their origin in human imagination especially as revealed in myth.[/

Sorry for the misspelling.
Thus they fit the definition of mythicist.

No, they don't. They were religious people who believed Jesus existed. This is why they rewrote the gospels to reflect their heretical beliefs. The only thing they rejected was his form of existence.

They denied that he was flesh and blood. They also denied that he suffered. Is not that the whole point of Christianity, that he "became flesh" and "suffered" so that sinful man would not have to?

You're moving the goal posts again! The "whole point" of the discussion isn't the theology of Christianity. The discussion is the existence of Christ! Stay on point, and quit equivocating.

What you asked for is a matter of record. Anyone reading this can easily find your post. Let them decide if I distorted anything. You should have been more precise but instead you made some flippant remark and are now crying over someone interpreting it as it stands.

I asked for one ancient source who denied Jesus' existence. You have not provided that. All you have provided is a group of heretics who denied his mode of existence -- not his existence itself.