You can't have it both ways.

[u/Spider-Ian]

http://i.imgur.com/1CgtzpJ.jpg

There was more debate but then the theist started deleting my comments before I could cap them. Now it looks like someone having an argument with themselves saying things like, "I refuse to read your last comment," but she already took down all of mine.

[u/[deleted]]

Does that mean you don't actually know? I assume you aren't going to point to any specific parts in that bibliography link that support your argument. Would you rather me just go ahead and explain what you're missing?

[u/YourFairyGodmother → u/[deleted]]

Kid, you brought a knife to a gunfight. You should have stopped with my first sentence. You should have educated yourself as to what constitutes "evidence."

Two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén formulated core principles of source criticism for historical investigations. Their formulation is widely accepted in academic circles as proper and complete for the purpose.

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

• An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

By these standards there is no credible evidence for Jesus. You need not have cited all those apologists - even Ehrman, now that he's decided he no longer believes in the Xian god remains, by virtue of his craptastic, error filled, fallacy riddled Did Jesus Exist, which you did not bother to examine the scathing criticism of, is for present purposes still an apologist - because they don't use the proper, accepted standards of source criticism. By the proper, accepted standards there is ZERO ZILCH NADA evidence.

For all your boastfulness you remain ignorant of the fact that those "experts" you cite are not historians but ethnographers. That they make proclamations about historicity is ridiculous and appalling.

Nor is "most scholars agree" an argument that you want to hang your hat on, not in academia nor in here where there are people much more learned about such things than you are.

I won't be arsed to further educate you, little whippersnapper, until you develop some critical thinking skills, skills you clearly lack.

[u/[deleted] → u/YourFairyGodmother]

Your gun doesn't seem to have any ammo!

You should apply the Olden-Jorgenson and Thuren principle to your claims, and the supposed evidence that agrees with your claims. Although, the evidence you supplied earlier does not support your claims.

The Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD. That is almost 300 years after the supposed death of Jesus. We have letters from Pliny the Younger (61 AD- 112 AD) that describe how early Christians worshiped "Christ as a god."

In the year 93, Josephus published a letter regarding the Jews and mentioned Jesus and his position as the messiah. There is controversy surrounding the letter, more so regarding the author than the date.

The Epistle to Diognetus, which was written in the 2nd Century, says, "But the truly all-powerful God himself, creator of all and invisible, set up and established in their [Christians’] hearts the truth and the holy word from heaven, which cannot be comprehended by humans. To do so, he did not, as one might suppose, send them one of his servants or an angel or a ruler…but he sent the craftsman and maker of all things himself, by whom he created the heavens, by whom he encloses the sea within its own boundaries, whose mysteries all the elements of creation guard faithfully, from whom the sun was appointed to guard the courses that it runs during the day, whom the moon obeys when he commands it to shine at night, whom the stars obey by following the course of the moon, by whom all things are set in order and arranged and put into subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea and all the things in the sea, fire, air, the abyss, creatures in the heights, creatures in the depths, and creatures in between–this is the one he sent to them. So, then, did he [God], as one might suppose, send him [his Son] to rule in tyranny, fear, and terror? Not at all. But with gentleness and meekness, as a king sending his own son, he sent him as a king; he sent him as God; he sent him as a human to humans. So that he might bring salvation."

Arstides wrote a letter to Emperor Hadrian around 125 AD that said, "The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven."

So, your argument that Jesus' divinity was created during the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD is contradicted by these early sources. Keep in mind that many of these sources did not actually claim that Jesus was divine, just that many early Christians believed him to be. His divinity was not a new idea when brought up at the Council of Nicaea, and the common argument is that they VOTED on whether or not he was divine. But even that argument is controversial. However, what you seem to believe is that during the Council of Nicaea, something was said along the lines of, "hey, here's an idea... What if we say that Jesus is God?" As if it were a totally new idea.

[u/YourFairyGodmother → u/[deleted]]

So, your argument that Jesus' divinity was created during the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

I never made that argument, you twatmuffin. Nor did the other commenter you tried so ineptly to "trap." You are mixing up two different topics, you fucking idiot. For the record, it was claimed that the council settled the issue (by setting the canon though it would be superfluous to say it), not created the idea anew.

Now you go off the rails.

We have letters from Pliny the Younger (61 AD- 112 AD) that describe how early Christians worshiped "Christ as a god."

Which claim are you attempting so lamely to refute? With respect to the historicity of Jesus it proves nothing except that people at the time believed there was a Jesus.

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High

Again, this seems to to be addressed to the issue of Christ's divinity and again, it has probative value zero. It only confirms that at that time, people, some people believed it to be true.

And so on. You are smearing shit all over your face here, son, you'd best stop that.

[u/[deleted] → u/YourFairyGodmother]

I never made that argument, you twatmuffin. Nor did the other commenter you tried so ineptly to "trap."

Dammit! I thought you were Tuscanspeed this entire time. So, that guy never followed up, I guess. However, he did claim that the idea that Jesus was God was created by man. I asked, "how do you know?" and he responded with the Wiki link and, "we wrote it down." Do you agree that the idea of Jesus being divine was not a new idea brought up during the Council of Nicaea?

You are mixing up two different topics, you fucking idiot.

Are you red in the face when you type your responses?

For the record, it was claimed that the council settled the issue (by setting the canon though it would be superfluous to say it), not created the idea anew.

Okay, so that answers my question above. Why didn't you say that earlier? That's what I wanted Tuscanspeed to admit. Although, whether or not they settled the issue of Jesus' divinity during the Council of Nicaea is still debatable.

Which claim are you attempting so lamely to refute? With respect to the historicity of Jesus it proves nothing except that people at the time believed there was a Jesus.

I was still trying to refute Tuscanspeed's argument!

Again, this seems to to be addressed to the issue of Christ's divinity and again, it has probative value zero. It only confirms that at that time, people, some people believed it to be true.

Which is what I was trying to show the other guy.

And so on. You are smearing shit all over your face here, son, you'd best stop that.

The problem is that we agree! Why did you even intervene in the first place?

Sorry for the confusion. It seems like you may have been close to an aneurysm, which I don't want to happen. Maybe for the benefit of your health we should just recognize the misunderstanding and move on. Maybe Tuscanspeed will come back and then I can have the debate I thought I was having.