That is precisely what your are doing.
To reject Acts and Josephus as evidence is intellectually shallow at best.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
technomage
Finding my own way
Oh, goodness, you're right! I guess this isn't just something that you can be spoon-fed from a web page. You may actually have to go out and DO SOME RESEARCH! :cover:
OK, enough with the fun and games on my part. Franky, this would be like me arguing the finer points of Luciferian doctrine with you when all I've done is read LaVey's "Satanic Bible" once, and it's the wrong book to discuss your teachings because you follow theistic Satanism.
I don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge of theistic Satanism to debate the issue with you. You don't have the depth of knowledge to debate ANE history with me. There's nothing wrong with ignorance: that can be cured, not easily, but the pursuit is worthwhile.
You're very good at debate, but your debate is debate tricks, not actual substance or knowledge. You're not debating _substance_ ... all you're doing is displaying style. And you're good at style, I'll freely acknowledge that. But until you get some substance to go with your debate, all you're doing is flapping your gums (metaphorically) in a semi-entertaining manner.
The link I sent you to does discuss an atheist who is working in the field of Biblical studies--the books in the list are "popular press" books that discuss (among other issues) what liberal Christians, agnostics, and atheists deal with in the academic field. Yeah, you're gonna have to read it: there is no way in hades that I can pre-digest it into suitable discrete blobs of pap suitable for posting to a web forum. You're going to have to dig in and do the work yourself.
C'mon, Franky. I'm offering you access to the Tree of Knowledge. How can you refuse?
Sees
Dragonslayer
Josephus was supposedly born after Jesus was gone...his writings supposedly have alterations...what is the point?
Oh, goodness, you're right! I guess this isn't just something that you can be spoon-fed from a web page. You may actually have to go out and DO SOME RESEARCH! :cover:
OK, enough with the fun and games on my part. Franky, this would be like me arguing the finer points of Luciferian doctrine with you when all I've done is read LaVey's "Satanic Bible" once, and it's the wrong book to discuss your teachings because you follow theistic Satanism.
I don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge of theistic Satanism to debate the issue with you. You don't have the depth of knowledge to debate ANE history with me. There's nothing wrong with ignorance: that can be cured, not easily, but the pursuit is worthwhile.
You're very good at debate, but your debate is debate tricks, not actual substance or knowledge. You're not debating _substance_ ... all you're doing is displaying style. And you're good at style, I'll freely acknowledge that. But until you get some substance to go with your debate, all you're doing is flapping your gums (metaphorically) in a semi-entertaining manner.
The link I sent you to does discuss an atheist who is working in the field of Biblical studies--the books in the list are "popular press" books that discuss (among other issues) what liberal Christians, agnostics, and atheists deal with in the academic field. Yeah, you're gonna have to read it: there is no way in hades that I can pre-digest it into suitable discrete blobs of pap suitable for posting to a web forum. You're going to have to dig in and do the work yourself.
C'mon, Franky. I'm offering you access to the Tree of Knowledge. How can you refuse?
That's nice, but that still doesn't really add to the discussion at hand here.
technomage
Finding my own way
That one post added more in substance than any half-dozen of your posts, Saint Franky. Not for lack of trying on your part ... but because you don't have the substance to offer.
I don't mean the above as an insult. As I said, ignorance is curable.
I keep it short and to the point instead of playing games. Not interested in your condescending attitude.
By the way, my name is Frank, not "Franky". I'm not a child.
technomage
Finding my own way
And relatively content free.
I'd wondered. But out of respect, I'll try to remember.Have you read Acts?
Says the person who was derailing the discussion into something that wasn't here nor there to the discussion. At best, it was a sidenote.
Yes. And Paul. Your point?
What is Acts evidence of?
Both Paul and Acts speak to the existence of a Jerusalem sect and tension between Paul and the then current leadership of that sect. Do you claim all of this to be an elaborate fabrication?
Well if you want to get technical, in the context of the OP the whole discussion about historicity is a side note.
I pointed that out to you guys a few dozen pages ago, but at this point I figure, "Oh well, the kids have already trashed this room. Might as well close the door and let them have fun".
Sees
Dragonslayer
Historic Jesus takes over everything
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Sorry to see you blink so soon. When you first entered the debate, I had such hope.
Seems to. We have a cpl zillion threads about it already, each one containing at least a few hundred posts from people who keep claiming they don't have any interest in the subject.
Those are also the same people who keep steering only vaguely related (or even completely unrelated) threads in that direction.
God help us if they ever decide to post about something they do care about.
technomage
Finding my own way
You've been asserting that my debate skills are substandard for several posts so far. As far as pure "zero-sum, winner-take-all" style, I'll gladly stipulate that it's true--but that's not the type of discussion I aim for. As far as substance ... as I said before, I'll let others judge that.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I didn't know your preference, so sorry for calling you Franky earlier.
No reflection on the people who joined in later, btw.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Your last two posts to St. Frank were pure ad hominem... nothing about the argument itself, just negative assertions about the arguer.
I'm sorry, but I do see that as substandard debate.
How about let's get back to the historical Jesus -- whether he was a fraud and such.