• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Good Examples:

Gavrill

ladies~
Convenient!
That's exactly what I was thinking, oh wow.

Romans were the first people to expand Christianity. Emperor Constantine saw some sort of Christian symbol (I think a cross, not sure) and forced his people to worship both Jesus and the Roman sun god.
 

Bellini Tabloid

whatcha say? that's cool...
There's also some scrolls that are hidden, and lost. Much like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that were discovered in between 1947 and 1956.
 

Smelge

Hey, Assbutt
But in other words, you can't see the evidence because it has conveniently been misplaced somewhere.

Thats like saying "Yeah, I know the rent's due, and it's in my flat somewhere, so that's proof I'm going to pay you."
 

Nargle

HOOT
This isn't anything as revolutionary as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., but has anyone heard of Tucker cars in the 30's, and how he got crushed by the big three car companies? I think that's a pretty pitiful example of an honest man who sincerely wanted to make a better car and improve lives for everyone, but he got stomped out by the bigger companies just because they couldn't afford to compete with him and his innovations. That's pretty lame if you ask me =C Just think how far we'd be now if he had been successful then!! Things like rotating headlights, power steering, and fuel injection, not to mention all sorts of safety features like seat belts and padded dashboards would be standard way back in the 30's!
 

vivatheshadows

I tip my hat to you good sir..
It's like saying King Solomon, and King David didn't exist. You gotta remember that Jesus wasn't noticed as the son of God from Jewish peoples, just a common carpenter.


Was he a good Carpenter? thats the shit I wanna know...


anyways

What about Jimmy Page? his blazing riffs have given us Metal, that is worth some merit i think
 

Kirbizard

Kamikaze Kirby
The proof isn't always physical.
I know God exists because he tucked me in one night and read me a bedtime story called "When Jesus converted to Islam" :V

And why would the Hebrews and romans create a fictional carpenter out of no-where?
It's weird, because I don't recall Jesus doing any decent carpentry himself in the Bible. Maybe I missed that part. <(._.)>

Your choice to believe, but it makes absolutely no sense for him to be fictional, and made up.
Actually, it only wouldn't make sense if you've been brought up on the bible and eat it's words like Mama Luigi's spaghetti. <(>_o)^
It makes perfect sense to everyone else.

Romans burned them in 70 AD, all thats left is in the holy bible.
All I could do with this is quote Voidrunners. "Convenient!"
 

Torrijos-sama

The Artist Formerly Known as Jesusfish
THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS OBAMA!
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
@Newf

Saying the Jesus was merely a myth is a rather unsubstantiated statement. While there is certainly debate over the biography of Jesus and whether he was a real man, there is a wealth of information, both Christian and pagan, referring to a Jewish profit we now call Jesus. Not only is there contemporary evidence for the existence of the man, it isn't really a stretch of the imagination to believe he could exist. More than once in history single men have had many people follow them for whatever reason, Jesus could have simply been another on e of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

~~~~~
I'll post something on topic later.

EDIT:
Placebo said:
Emperor Constantine saw some sort of Christian symbol (I think a cross, not sure)...

Its was called the chi-rho-iota and was a "p" and "x" put together.
 
Last edited:

lilEmber

Small Dragon
Romans burned them in 70 AD, all thats left is in the holy bible.
LOLWAT.
No, there's many things wrong with that and the largest one has been pointed out; they would cherish it, not destroy it.

If you don't start proving it, with sources that are legitimate, then you better start shutting the fuck up about the topic you clearly know nothing about.
There's also some scrolls that are hidden, and lost. Much like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that were discovered in between 1947 and 1956.
No, see above.

@Newf

Saying the Jesus was merely a myth is a rather unsubstantiated statement. While there is certainly debate over the biography of Jesus and whether he was a real man, there is a wealth of information, both Christian and pagan, referring to a Jewish profit we now call Jesus. Not only is there contemporary evidence for the existence of the man, it isn't really a stretch of the imagination to believe he could exist. More than once in history single men have had many people follow them for whatever reason, Jesus could have simply been another on e of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
See above, wiki doesn't count on this...at all...do you have any idea how many retards that follow that fabricated man exist on the internet?
Prove it with links to the historical documents and proper translations; professors, not morons.
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
I gave you a link. It is information, a source. Whether or not you think the source is valid or not really isn't my problem. I provided evidence for my assertion that Jesus was a real man, the responsibility now falls on you to make a rebuttal with a source of your own that contradicts the one I provided, and preferably is more reputable.

Until then you cannot simply say "lol iz wiki" and neglect providing any evidence of your own. It's bad format. Again, if wiki is such a bad source, you should have no problem coming up with a source to refute mine.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
I gave you a link. It is information, a source. Whether or not you think the source is valid or not really isn't my problem. I provided evidence for my assertion that Jesus was a real man, the responsibility now falls on you to make a rebuttal with a source of your own that contradicts the one I provided, and preferably is more reputable.

Until then you cannot simply say "lol iz wiki" and neglect providing any evidence of your own. It's bad format. Again, if wiki is such a bad source, you should have no problem coming up with a source to refute mine.

Yes, actually I can. If the correct information were on there saying Jesus doesn't exist, it would instantaneously be removed by Bible thumpers.
Give me a VALAD link, one a University would take for a research assignment. Stop using wiki as a irrefutable source on things that have many conflicts, using it for a illness or information on hard known things such as fruit or computer parts is completely different than religion and things that have shrouds of conspiracy around them.

Edit: Also note on the wiki page is has:
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (February 2009)
 
Last edited:

Kirbizard

Kamikaze Kirby
Saying the Jesus was merely a myth is a rather unsubstantiated statement.
It really isn't. <(o.o)>

While there is certainly debate over the biography of Jesus and whether he was a real man, there is a wealth of information, both Christian and pagan, referring to a Jewish profit we now call Jesus.
If it was spread by word of a man called Jesus causing amazing feats, then Jesus wouldn't need to exist in order for people to talk about him and cause a commotion.

Although, I'll admit I've not read half of the text in question. So if we've had multiple people chronicling first hand views of him, then that's much more believable.
It's got to be multiple people though, if it's just a bare few, then we're basically catering for hundred-year old attention whores. No matter how 'trust-worthy' those people may appear. :£

it isn't really a stretch of the imagination to believe he could exist.
This part is very true, however.

Personally, if he existed, I always like thinking of Jesus as an illusionist who was ahead of his time. Because I find it funny how a modern day magician could easily impress crowds of people from back then, with just a few simple tricks not unlike the miracles described. 83



Oh that note, Derren Brown is an example of a Good Example. :3
 

ForestFox91

can't dance
You forgot the Power Rangers!!
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
Newf you are consistently ignoring the point that shitty evidence > no evidence. Guess which category you currently fall under? Not only that, your attacks n wiki are unsubstantiated as well. More than once I have read wiki articles reiterating facts I know to be true, and yet have only heard of the inaccuracies it has. My wiki link is fine. I doubt it is the most accurate, indeed there is even a dispute over that very fact, but at least it is better than me simply giving my unsupported opinion without any references or sources at all.

Again, I gave a source. It is now your responsibility to provide a more accurate source refuting it.

Kirbi I am not quite sure I follow your logic; what about spreading the word of Jesus and whatnot?

EDIT: Also the dispute is over either the Pliny the Younger source or the Tacitus source, not the entire article.

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/index.html

There ffs. Still waiting on your part. Spend some time, look around. I know I have found sources rebutting some of the points I made in my search for support, I know they exist. Have at it.
 
Last edited:

lilEmber

Small Dragon
No evidence and shitty evidence means you're incorrect. Shitty evidence > no evidence but it's still not enough, in any situation or topic, ever.
It's not my responsibility to provide anything, you're the one making claims, the burden of proof is upon you to persuade your audience.

Again, that shows no actual proof; that link's sources of information are http://www.religion-online.org/
That's not biased at all.
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
My job is not to persuade an audience, it is to support my assertion, which I did, more than once. You, on the other hand, continue to neglect providing any kind of support for your assertions whatsoever, have yet to prove the articles invalidity (both due to the fact that one section of the article that might possibly be factually incorrect ! = entirely fallacious article, and that wikipedia != a religious website) and are making no effort to remedy either. It is becoming tiresome.
 

Kirbizard

Kamikaze Kirby
Kirbi I am not quite sure I follow your logic; what about spreading the word of Jesus and whatnot?
I was just suggesting that most of the people who wrote about Jesus likely wrote about him after hearing gossip and not actually meeting him themselves.
I mean that Pliny the Younger had only heard of him from other people mentioning "Christus", which doesn't really support him existing at all, but just people believing he existed through word of mouth. :/
Tacitus doesn't even mention where he got his sources from, which puts that into severe question too.

I mean, people can exist without actually existing. :V

Like I said, I've not read half of the historical writing though. :C
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
My job is not to persuade an audience, it is to support my assertion, which I did, more than once. You, on the other hand, continue to neglect providing any kind of support for your assertions whatsoever, have yet to prove the articles invalidity (both due to the fact that one section of the article that might possibly be factually incorrect ! = entirely fallacious article, and that wikipedia != a religious website) and are making no effort to remedy either. It is becoming tiresome.

If you want to have a shitty link war, that can be arranged; if you want to have an intellectual debate, you must provide intellectual sources to back up your claims.
One is wikipedia, which goes by what the majority says, and the majority isn't always right (especially in the belief system). The second used a religious website for sources, which is biased beyond recognition. If you were to hand those out in a research assignment in school you would get a zero and a talk after class about proper sources; granted this isn't a school, your sources still hold the same weight.

Edit: Clearly you won't listen to reason, so here's my sources of information; the top of a Google search that is equivalent to the top of your Google search(es):
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html
http://www.thegodmovie.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell57.html
Your turn...
 
Last edited:

Kommodore

well what is it?
Then howsabout you start with my second link.

And the fact that there is no logical reason to assume that there could not be a man named Jesus, one of many "prophets" during the time who simply was successful at what he did and earned a large following, or that all of the contemporary historians (linked both in the wiki and the second .edu source) are wrong in describing a man of Jesus' characteristic occupying the same area and time period.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
Then howsabout you start with my second link.

And the fact that there is no logical reason to assume that there could not be a man named Jesus, one of many "prophets" during the time who simply was successful at what he did and earned a large following, or that all of the contemporary historians (linked both in the wiki and the second .edu source) are wrong in describing a man of Jesus' characteristic occupying the same area and time period.

I already refuted your second link; it gets the information FROM a religious website. A website completely devoted to the myth, engorged in its own asshole.
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
Butler University is no t a religious school.

And as for your links? How is a "cox group," "jesusneverexisted.com," and a motherfucking wiki supposed to be more accurate than a wiki? How do any of them fit your requirements for a "valid source?" (i.e .ude) The least you could do is not be a hypocrite.

The only one with any credibility (according to your requirements for "credible) is the Lew Rockwell link. And even then he makes his bias clear in the second paragraph. Hardly objective. And the fact that he isn't a history doesn't help out his credibility either.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
I was doing as you requested, post links that refuted yours; you posted the top two of a Google search, I posted the top five, so far I'm in the lead. Your turn.

If you want to use "Good Examples", go for it. Until then I shouldn't have too either.
 

Kommodore

well what is it?
Again, what's wrong with Butler university? And why should I listen to a activist and economist over a professor of theology?
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
Again, what's wrong with Butler university? And why should I listen to a activist and economist over a professor of theology?

Where's this Butler University, and why should I believe it?
And I'd listen to an activist (depending) over theologists; all they do is study belief, and honestly the study of make believe isn't that much fact, and more fiction.
 
Top