Accusations of " Assertions" & " Lack of Proof" & "Speculation"

I am told often enough times by the clergy and religious laymen and other theist here that it is a fact that there is difference between evidence and proof  and that evidence and proof are not the same thing, which is true of course.

Speaking for myself, I have never claimed to have been able to "prove" a single one of my "assertions" or any conclusions that I may have reached with  only the scant "evidence" available to me from the four Gospels, which ultimately ends with an hypothetical, an idea or simply an educated  guess when it comes to the four gospels and the life and times of Christ and his very short ministry.  

 It appears at times that the theist will throw out the accusation of "you are unable to prove anything that you have concluded". To which my answer is, 'yes, you are correct. I can no more prove that Jesus even existed than you can'. So the question of proof here is beside the point.

Take for instance the claim that Jesus was king of the Jews, while all the time only assuming Jesus existed, the only available  evidence from the four gospels points to the conclusion that he was but it is not proof. Jesus himself never claims to be  king at all. All claims of kingship appear to come from elsewhere, including from his enemies:  Pilate and the head board of the cross for instance, and Herod's "fear". The wise men in search of he that was "born King of the Jews" and their royal gifts. And from this scant evidence Christians world wide have themselves asserted that the title "King of the Jews" is an established fact. 

 So we see that is all the researcher has at his disposal is evidence and not proof and evidence can only suggest greater on less possibilities and plausibility.

One can only draw on, assess, survey, interpret it and draw a  conclusion i.e. such as a sequence of events is more likely to have happened than others. And from there the matter should  becomes one of commons sense.

 That other accusation of  "speculation", something I also admit to,  goes towards creating the hypotheses. Indeed a hypothesis rest on speculation.

Did Jesus and or his disciples have a hand in John the Baptists death? Hypothetically it is a plausible possibility that they may have going by the evidence.

  Of the 83,680 words that are in the four gospels Jesus is said to have spoken only less than a third which are not a lot considering those words can be read in a matter of hours. And neither is it a lot of evidence either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian thinking goes like:

1. Accept any clue that points to Jesus

2. Reject all clues that point elsewhere

3. Draw conclusion

And conclusion is that Christianity is a mental illness.

Christianity is a collection of ill judged data sequences.

To have a better idea of what happened at that time I think you should read more than the gospels, maybe the apocryphal books. The gospels is a historical material specially selected by the church for its political convinience, so...

I couldn't agree more. But most of the theist here  rely strictly on the scriptures for their faith and beliefs and will reject anything extra biblical. -With the attitude - if it ain't in the bible it ain't true. The Reverend Tradesecret is such a  stickler.  Although  they will allow themselves  speculations and assertions ( and present them as biblical fact) they will not afford the opposition the same privilege.

 This is  why I always endeavour to keep my threads strictly to the biblical "evidence". 

You are not differentiating between theist and Christian here. Is that intentional? Because I want to address parts of this but not sure if it is reasonable to do so.

For example I think it's just as fair to assume God is real as it is unreal and then build an understanding of the world that begins with that premise. 

It can be stated that, it would be much logical to take neither position. However if a position must be chosen, it's fair for the theist to claim you have the same burden of proof to disprove God as they do to prove God. 

I am probably arguing a strawman here, but I was wondering what you think your burden of proof is against theists as opposed to Christians. 

Clearly a Christian has a higher burden of proof than just an atheist or theist in general, I wouldn't disagree with you if that is your point. 

Yes,  I realised.

  But considering that  I mention the four gospels, Jesus, the cross, John the Baptist, Herod, wise men, king of the Jews, Pilate, Christians world wide, life and times of Christ and his very short ministry  and disciples- all in the op,  I took it for granted that the reader would know I wasn't addressing or speaking of Muslim, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Jews.

All very presumptuous of me., I know. I  will  try better next time.

Another example of the "evidence" leading to hypotheticals via speculations and assertions and plausible possibility, is the very good possibility that Jesus may well have survived the crucifixion.

Died quick.

Didn't have his legs broken as did the other "robbers".

Offered vinegar.

The rapid removal from the cross.

It wasn't a family member that asked for the body.

Entombed in a private newly etched out tomb.

A tomb in private surrounding.

Expensive spices and potions carried to the tomb.

people seeing him alive after his execution.

And much more. And all evidence pointing to him surviving.

.

.
Stephen, 

In your lack of proof thread, don't you dare bring up the fact that there is embarrassing scant history of my Jesus as God subsequent to his death and coming back to life in three days in a zombi form, and then ascending into my glorious 1400 square mile heaven, okay? 

The last thing that I need is to "try" and make logical sense of historians even mentioning Jesus as God subsequent to his flying skyward to heaven, where when they did, the first historical mention was with Josephus Flavius, 60 YEARS LATER AFTER HIS ASCENSION!  Jesus H. Christ, no pun intended, this is an embarrassing situation for TRUE Christians like myself to swallow, I mean, accept!  Like I've said before, its like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, and it never was mentioned in history until 60 years later! *cough.*

What makes it more embarrassing is that the subsequent alleged historians after Josephus that mentions a Jesus character is even further years out from His earthly existence which is embarrassing to say the least!

How can there be NO MENTION from historians relating to the only one God Jesus that created the universe, mankind, the animals, and all living things, and where Jesus as God restructured the void earth for His HEBREW Creation only,  but only 60 YEARS LATER TO START mentioning His alleged presence?!  WTF!

SIDEBAR:  For comedy relief, can you imagine in what Miss Tradesecret would propose to the FACTS above in her long winded word salads?  Break out the Kleenex Boxes to wipe the tears of laughter from our faces if she ever did!  ROFLOL!

.

The question of the ages, Brother D.  Odd though, that Jewish historian and military leader Flavius Josephus, a general that fought against Rome  only affords  Jesus "son of God" creator of the universe and everything in it, barley enough words to make a sentence in the whole of his extensive works concerning the history of the Jews.  

Another example of the "evidence" leading to hypotheticals via speculations and assertions and plausible possibility, is the very good possibility that Jesus and John the Baptist  may well have  been serious (even deadly) rivals!

John had thousands of his own disciples.

John sent two of his own disciples to "follow" Jesus.

John refused to baptise Jesus.

John believed that Jesus was supposed to be baptising him.

 John denied knowing Jesus.

John had serious doubts about Jesus and his claims.

 Joh continued to have disciples after the baptism of Jesus and his arrest.

Jesus and John never once met again after John was supposed to have baptised him.

John denies being a prophet, Jesus appears to claim John was the prophet Elijah

The bible  claims anyone "born of woman" is a sinner. Jesus specifically uses this in  reference to John the Baptist. It was an insult.

And much more.

Experience informs us of the factional nature of such people.

So it's hardly surprising.