Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by piggy pablo on Jul 17, 2019 18:01:33 GMT -5
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.
I can prove Bourdain existed and did numerous lectures and ticketed talks.
That's the point, don't be deliberately obtuse.
I'm honestly confused about this. Jesus was allowed last draft, he's a historical figure, because he didn't sell tickets does that make him ineligible? Did MLK sell tickets for his speeches?
I guess you're now making the argument that Jesus didn't exist so that's a different story, but I was originally replying to you saying he wasn't eligible because he didn't have setlists online.
yeah you can be an atheist and believe that Jesus is not a messiah. the dali lama is also for all intents and purposes is a fraud and pretending to be someone else. you're basically getting a MF Doomleganger
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail."
Post by piggy pablo on Jul 17, 2019 18:08:47 GMT -5
He says right in that quote that there is no archaeological evidence, nor would he expect there to be.
In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23
He says right in that quote that there is no archaeological evidence, nor would he expect there to be.
In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23
I'm not refuting that, but the existence of a man does not mean he was actually the son of God, or gave performances that count under the rules of this draft
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail."
Laugh all you want but I'm not lying
Isn't this the point? why would there be archaeological evidence of him? Basically anyone that existed that long ago is only evidenced by writings. I don't even believe in god but I believe that Jesus existed as a person.
I didn't realize inforoo had such a hard on for Jesus.
Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between religiosity and history, or just arguing disingenuously?
No one has been able to prove to me that Jesus gave any performances that count under the rules of this draft. I'm not refuting that he, as a regular person, may have existed. What I'm refuting is that there's any evidence he qualifies for this game.
Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between religiosity and history, or just arguing disingenuously?
No one has been able to prove to me that Jesus gave any performances that count under the rules of this draft. I'm not refuting that he, as a regular person, may have existed. What I'm refuting is that there's any evidence he qualifies for this game.
None of the evidence you've provided so far has to do with his eligibility as a performer. It has to do with disputing his existence, so you're moving the goalposts there. You also bring up the whole Son of God thing, which is beside the point that anyone has made: that he existed.
It stands to reason that he gave many public sermons. The Baptism of John, for one, is recognized as having happened, which we went over last time. Someone with his number of followers probably got out there a good bit.
No one has been able to prove to me that Jesus gave any performances that count under the rules of this draft. I'm not refuting that he, as a regular person, may have existed. What I'm refuting is that there's any evidence he qualifies for this game.
None of the evidence you've provided so far has to do with his eligibility as a performer. It has to do with disputing his existence, so you're moving the goalposts there. You also bring up the whole Son of God thing, which is beside the point that anyone has made: that he existed.
It stands to reason that he gave many public sermons. The Baptism of John, for one, is recognized as having happened, which we went over last time. Someone with his number of followers probably got out there a good bit.
I guess we disagree on what qualifies as a performance. My initial comment all the way on the last page was about the ability to produce information about any of his performances, so it's a fallacy to accuse me of moving goalposts