• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Myth of Yeshua Ben Jacob [W:314]

JamesBY said:
I see. You want to back the Affirmative but want me to play first. That's hypocrisy, RAMOSS.
Click to expand...

No, I am merely asking you to support your claim. I didn't ask you to support that jesus is not a myth.. but rather the z didn't ahve the language, symbols or logic to support his faith.

Then, you made the positive claim that 'you have not been able to show that God do not exist'.. which, of course, had nothing to do with my intiial challenge, but is a divirsionary tactic.

I would be happy to oblige, but since it's a brand new subject between you and me, I want to you define what God is first. You made a claim about god.. that it can not be shown NOT to exist. I want to know 'What do you mean by God'... and define it.. Can you define what God is, not by the actions attributed by God, but rather by what the substance of God is?

Since you are avoiding that question, .. it seem you can't, and you are saying that no one can prove something that is not able to be properly defined does not exist.
 
I believe in God, and I am sad for you.

If you have difficulty with that, I will leave it to you.
 
JamesBY said:
I believe in God, and I am sad for you.

If you have difficulty with that, I will leave it to you.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you believe in, or don't believe in. I want you to do the following. I want you to back up your claim that z doesn't ahve the language, symbols or logic for his faith.

And, in response to your diversionary tactic sayign I can't disprove God/gods//.. (which I had said nothing about what so ever, ), I just want you to define 'what do you mean by God[.. can you define God in a way other than actions attributed to God.?

And, for that, I get passive aggressive abuse. It doesn't make your position seem reasonable.
 
RAMOSS, what you want is immaterial.

I don't have to prove anything to you.

No can prove that deity does not exist. If that chaps you, I don't care.

You want to violate the rules of debate, by you backing the OP's affirmation yet demanding I affirm my belief in opposition.

I don't have to, and what you want is immaterial.
 

Well, wants and desires are not material at all. However, I can and will point out when someone makes claims they can not support.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The answer is easy - it's money, as usual.
https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm
Click to expand...


That is some old garbage and that link, created by the offspring of the serpent in Genesis, pure and simple. There was no paint found on the Shroud. Modern science confirms this. The scientists in this video confirms this from multiple disciplines. I was wrong about the use of space technology, I was remembering incorrectly, it was apparently use of aerial imaging that discovered the 3D effect of the image on the Shroud. Notice they show you (an see with your own eyes--not merely typed words making a claim) how you don't get the same effect when the tool they used is used on a photograph.

Then the UV light which reveals serum around the blood stains. A forger from the Middle Ages made that too?

The imprints on the coin were too small to be made by human hand. Again, all shown, 21st technology call youtube video (21st century access to information).




From your linked article:

The Shroud Painting Explained
(Sidebar to Vikan Article)

by
Walter C. McCrone
Click to expand...


The blood stains are red--as explained--because of a substance the body of a person produces when beaten severely, and that substance entering the blood leaves dried blood red forever. That substance was found when the blood was analyzed. It was in the first video I posted I believe. But it is repeated in all the videos I think.


Anyways... better videos and Roy Rogers changed his position completely--seen stating so on video in this video--once he personally discovered the sample taken to carbon date were taken from a portion of the cloth that had received repairs in the Middle Ages after the fire. And he is scathing at those scientists that took the sample refusing to admit they made an error. He also does not like the "sneaky" way in which they took the sample and broke protocol.


New Forensic Evidence Validates The Shroud Of Turin And The Resurrection Of The Person In It
Click to expand...

Of course, your religion is atheism or against the resurrection of Jesus or whatever, so, the only information you will accept is that which confirms your religious beliefs. And all these experts on camera--faces seen (names given)--on a video that would be made public and seen by millions of lay people (unlike that obscure article all anti-Shroud people go to to post), risking their reputations by throwing themselves in the public eye, are all lying? Yeah, sure. :roll:
 
zyzygy said:
Wrong. I am saying that there is no proof of the existence of any deity. Mankind has invented many of them. Can you prove that Krishna does not exist?
Click to expand...

Are you arguing with JamesBY (who I stand by in acknowledging the existence of God) over what Christians term "God the Father" or over Jesus as God?

Post #1 asserted that Jesus--the actual human figure of the New Testament--never existed. It wasn't even saying Jesus was not God, post #1 claimed Jesus never even existed but that the Roman Catholic Church alone (no other Rites of the Church involved like in Alexandria or Antioch or Jerusalem) made up the figure Jesus.

Philosophically one can reason God exists. But scientifically you can't prove that God exists. So what, that is the value of faith, I think it was Jesus who said blessed is he who has not seen yet believes.

But there is reasonable evidence (not proof) to believe Jesus was a real human person who lived and had a cult following. That the cult following grew in numbers and became known as Christians.

I would say the Shroud of Turin is physical evidence that Jesus lived.

Now, if one wishes to not acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus or not acknowledge Jesus as God then so be it. Each person has free will. And belief in the Trinity literally requires graces from God to believe. The grace to believe. Because all humans receive some graces such as varying levels of formal education, varying degrees of good parents, feet, house, a romantic partner etc. Just as everyone has some cross to carry. That's all humans irrespective of whether they are atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, male, female etc. Some people have been given the cross of varying degrees of terrible parents, no feet, no romantic partner, etc. But to believe in the Holy Trinity requires a particular grace to be able to do so. But one also has the free will to reject that grace.

So, I can not lecture anyone into believing Jesus was God made flesh. But I can lecture one that the Shroud was not--astronomically unlikely--a forgery of the Middle Ages. And at minimum it provides physical evidence (not proof) that Jesus as a real historical person. What one chooses to interpret to a greater degree from the Shroud is up to them. I think there is only one logical conclusion but I'm certain many will deny the resurrection of Jesus and His divinity.
 

Not really. The shroud IS a religion in and of itself. There are as many debunks of it as there are "proofs". You can believe whatever you want about it.

Thanks for proving Carbon-14 is nonsense. We needed that.
 

That's not really a surprise, is it? But the question, what is God, is really a big one because it's one theists are incapable of answering in any intellectual way. What is it and how do they know that's what it is? Where did they get that information? And if they say some holy book, how do they know that the people who wrote the holy book got it right? This is a massive problem because they claim something exists, yet not only can they not rationally define what it is, they can't give any reason why we ought to take that claim seriously.

But let's be honest, you won't get a good answer because most theists refuse to even entertain the question.
 
zyzygy said:
http://shroudturinfake.yolasite.com/
Click to expand...

This is the year 2017, so, if one appreciates modern science and it modern tools then post some videos. The typed word is 19th century science technology. In the 21st century we have more tools to disseminate information.

The Bible is the typed word. Published science article use the typed word too--just like in mode of transportation George Washington rode on a horse and moved no faster than Julius Caesar who also rode on a horse as his mode of transportation. But the reason and purpose of published science papers is not that they are held up like the Bible or it's Genesis creation story, assumed true, and accepted on authority, but rather that a scientist or a science team can put to typed word their hypothesis, methodology, tools used, and their results and conclusions. So, that--and this is important--their peers in their field of science can do the exact same thing thy did and then see if they get the same results. The principle of repeatability.

Other than anyone can type up anything in the written word. The Bible and its creation story of Adam and Eve is typed up.




The internet--which you and I are using--was said and still is said to revolutionize access to information for the average person. Sure, plenty of bad and false information can be had on the internet and its youetube videos too, but on the other hand the speed and access they give the Brazilian favela kid, the poor Ethiopian walking on a dirt road, or the middle-class American mom is phenomenal. When I did not understand certain things in homework for a science course given to me at my public university I used to go on youtube and listen to varying sources like Ivy League science professors in class (lecture hall) explaining the issue I was having a problem with. And I live all the way in blue collar Milwaukee. Staggering.

In science labs you'll use computers the 21st century too. If for no other reason their computational power is so incredibly fast.

So, let me introduce you to the 21st century:

Documentary | BBC — Shroud of Turin
Click to expand...

In the 21st century the dissemination of information does not only rely on typed words. We have videos that can be shot in HD 720p, 1080p, or 4k. The scientist or the mother of child killed by a cop can explain on video, engaging our ears and eyes, their position or what they saw. The scientist may even be able to show us what he saw like shutting off lights and taking a UV light source over a wall, floor, or cloth.

So, I prefer videos. I'm not in a science course or philosophy course where I'm required (and forced if I want to pass the course) to read through a mountain of papers in typed word.

If the tools used by scientist to examine the Shroud aren't worth a damn then they are not worth a damn at America's most prestigious science laboratories and universities. When an atheist only accept results--gathered by those tools--from scientist using the scientific method when it confirms their bias, and then rejects them when they don't confirm their bias but contradicts them, that atheist is just like the Evangelical Protestant that rejects the Theory of Evolution. They both are religious.

So, as I said, whatever one believes very deeply is a--their--religion. The better question is: is their belief orthodox. And by orthodox I mean catholic with the small "c," I mean universal, true, right way of worshiping, right spiritual formation, attitude etc.

If being "orthodox" means--or also means--"universal" and "true" then you can apply that to the sciences or questioning or accepting conclusions (or methods and tools) in a science paper.
 
The video does not trump the typed word. No professor is going to let a student pull that weak stunt.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Not really. The shroud IS a religion in and of itself. There are as many debunks of it as there are "proofs". You can believe whatever you want about it.

Thanks for proving Carbon-14 is nonsense. We needed that.
Click to expand...

I never "proved" nor insinuate Carbon-14 testing is an invalid form of dating a sample taken from an object. You didn't watch any of the videos did you? The issue is that--and its accepted fact now because pieces of the samples were kept for any future testing, so they went back and looked at them under microscope--the samples were mixed woven with cotton (and the cotton was then dyed) from a repair made during the Middle Ages. Textile experts even confirmed from images submitted to them that it looked like a mixed weave from a repair. But then thy went under microscope.

The established protocol the team of scientist made (if I recall correctly from that priest in a video I posted) was that 7 samples were to be taken from 7 different locations of the Shroud. And taken under some sort of checks and balance observation the team of scientist made prior to even going to Italy. However, those scientist that were given the task of taking the sample did it when no one was around (insinuated by scientist Roy Rogers), and then took it from the worst possible location on the Shroud, the area that had received a repair during the Middle Ages.

There aren't any "debunks" of the Shroud. Excepted the Carbon-14 dating test but it is now accepted that the samples were contaminated with cotton threads from the Middle Ages.






Let me bring you up to speed to the 21st century. It's called use of video. Even with the typed word if you sit in modern massive sized lecture hall in a science course today you'll have to use modern technology, you'll be answering questions, quizzes in the lecture hall with use of a "clicker" or your cellphone or tablet. Information is no longer simply disseminated by the 19th century typed word on paper.

Here... an actual medical doctor giving a lecture on the Shroud. Your eyes and ears are engaged in the information he presents.

The Most Comprehensive Presention on the Shroud on YouTube 2

William Guy
Click to expand...

 
JamesBY said:
The video does not trump the typed word. No professor is going to let a student pull that weak stunt.
Click to expand...

Video "proof" of free energy machines and debunking of the moon landing are on youtube, along with some useful things. I generally don't sit through random videos unless they are recommended by printed material that I find compelling. I may watch one of these when I have time, but yeah, posting a bunch of video links to make a point for you is weak.
 

God is termed--theologically in Christianity--as First Cause.

Theology uses philosophical arguments--not scientific ones--to arrive at its conclusions. Of course, theology also restricts it's philosophical discourse, or conclusions rather to its dogmas.

Christianity has many doctrines but only a few dogmas.

Doctrines are kind of like the tens of thousands or millions of laws throughout all states and cities of the United States that often find varying degrees of modification, and dogmas are kind of like the much smaller US body of law called the US Constitution.

The most central dogma in Christianity is: The Holy Trinity.

Now, free will is not something only drug addicts have. Albeit, modern liberal Catholic clergy now say drug addicts are like homosexuals and have no free will. Just as I knew they eventually would because I grasp the intellectual ramifications of determinism in biology.

At any rate... less knowledgeable political conservatives like to pontificate how drug addicts have free will (and assume through listening to emotional rhetoric and propaganda TV that no homosexual or heterosexual does). I for one do not deny that. Although I think one's free will can be to varying degrees more compromised and degraded do to various things. But here is the kicker: all those that reject Jesus or God the Father have the free will to do so. Like n IV heroin addict.

Recall 2 criminals crucified next to Jesus. One was the heroin addict asking Jesus to remember him. The other was the Republican or Democrat mocking Jesus. Both crucified criminals had free will.
 

That's why religion fails, because it isn't based on what's actually real, but on what you can spin syllogistic arguments into suggesting. You can make a philosophical argument for unicorns, that doesn't mean unicorns are real.

But sure, go back to your emotional delusions. It's all you have.
 
I don't know about anyone else but I certainly don't need a piece of cloth with blood on it, to prove to me that Jesus is real or to put my faith in him...
 
Elvira said:
I don't know about anyone else but I certainly don't need a piece of cloth with blood on it, to prove to me that Jesus is real or to put my faith in him...
Click to expand...

That's because you don't actually care if it's true, you only care if it makes you feel good.
 
Elvira said:
You would be wrong...
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. If you cared if it was actually true, "making sense" wouldn't be the metric you'd be using. Objective and verifiable evidence would be the metric you would be using. That you're not says a lot.
 
Cephus said:
No, I don't think so. If you cared if it was actually true, "making sense" wouldn't be the metric you'd be using. Objective and verifiable evidence would be the metric you would be using. That you're not says a lot.
Click to expand...

Well I really don't care what you think...FYI I believe the shroud to be a fake...
 
Elvira said:
Well I really don't care what you think...FYI I believe the shroud to be a fake...
Click to expand...

That's because it is. But you clearly believe a lot of things without the slightest interest in whether or not they are fake because they happen to make you feel good. If you care more about feels than reals, you're doing something absolutely wrong.
 

I think you are a fake...lol...
 
Elvira said:
I think you are a fake...lol...
Click to expand...

I think you're delusional and irrational. One of us has evidence. Guess which one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…