Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[gree0232]

I sure wish someone would bring one of those historical-Jesus-book-writing guys here so that we could examine them in person.

I should write a book explaining the real and actual truth of things, except I've got better things to do than study the minutia of it all... as do most skeptical types, I'm guessing.

And this is a professional standard of history is it?

Emperor Justinian does not exist until both he and those who write about him show up to you in person?

You should indeed write a book about these 'truths' where even amateur historians will rip the claims apart with ease and aplomb.

When we find ourselves making up different, and wholly illogical, standard to reject someone else's religion ... that should give anyone pause.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Jesus Mythery would seem to be the atheistic version, IMO, of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I read halfway through your message and stopped. If you want to rant against 'atheists', I'm not really interested.

But if you want to debate the historical Jesus, I'll be glad to do that with you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When we find ourselves making up different, and wholly illogical, standard to reject someone else's religion ... that should give anyone pause.

When you're ready to calm down and talk, I'm here.

 

[outhouse]

But if you want to debate the historical Jesus, I'll be glad to do that with you.

You have done everything but that.

Im waiting for you to state "your served" with all the dancing around the exact topic.

 

[gree0232]

I read halfway through your message and stopped. If you want to rant against 'atheists', I'm not really interested.

But if you want to debate the historical Jesus, I'll be glad to do that with you.

ROFL :clap:

So, the gist of your rebuttal is that listing examples of Ph.D's who unanimously dismiss Jesus Mythery as bizarre is a rant against atheists?

What I very clearly do in the post is list and support Will Durant, Michael Grant (atheists) and Bart Erhman (agnostic) and their cases in support of historical Jesus as sound, cogent, and widely accepted by period scholars.

I contrast that with GA Wells, a professor of German, whose work has been essentially ridiculed by the scholarly community and retracted as a result.

Would you care to explain to me how its ... er, a bigoted smear of ... agh atheism ... to note and extoll three atheist authors while disparaging one who's claims are widely dismissed as bizarre?

It would appear instead that what you are employing is a simple ad hominem. Your argument is without merit because you are a bigot! :run:

You may want to examine your own prejudice in this case. Calling those who have actually read these authors a bunch of anti-atheist bigots, even as they laud three atheists and criticize only one .... even as they contrast the atheists who support the three with those who support the one?

Its called confirmation bias. Its generally what conspiracy theorists do when confronted with actual evidence. the evidence isn't solid you see, there is no need to make an evidenced based rebuttal when all we have to do is smear the person is there?

Typical behavior of the standard myther, whom, once again, I will point out is not even a majority of atheists.

Atheists need not behave this way, and in most cases, they do not.

I doubt very seriously that atheists appreciate being called anti-religious bigots because they extoll evolution, and I quite certain that Christians having bothered to actually study the historical record are equally bored by zealots dismissing their finding as prejudice.

Its an unintellectual claim.

And right on par for standard Jesus Mythers.

Do you think you are the first myther to level such a claim? And why would Michael Grant agree with my assessment and not yours? How is that an anti-atheist smear when atheist period scholars AGREE with me?

 

[gree0232]

When you're ready to calm down and talk, I'm here.

No AG, you are not.

What you are clearly not doing is discussing.

You are ignoring discussion and finding excuses to fallaciously dismiss that which you have no intention of acknowledging.

Its typical Myther behavior.

It only allows me to highlight the obtuse rejectionism based on a personal faith over evidence.

The Jesus Myth, as you are amply demonstrating, is little more than a standard conspiracy, supported exactly the same way any conspiracy is. By all means, continue.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Its typical Myther behavior. It only allows me to highlight the obtuse rejectionism based on a personal faith over evidence.

Boy... you're gonna fit right in with the Historical Jesusers around here.

Why don't you try offering outhouse a Replacement Hypothesis.

Hehehe....

 

[gree0232]

Boy... you're gonna fit right in with the Historical Jesusers around here.

Why don't you try offering outhouse a Replacement Hypothesis.

Hehehe....

Well, as you make yet another personal assessment of a perfect stranger ... prejudiced? I find its worth pointing out that you are neither rebutting the presentation of atheist expertise that dismisses your opinion as bizarre, nor are you laying out a case that explains how you arrived at a conclusion so starkly at odds with the evidence.

As I said, typical behavior of a conspiracy theory.

I need no alternate theory conspiraist, I have the unanimous opinion of period scholars in support of my 'theory'.

Your support?

Right, as is typical when confronting conspiracy theorists, an evidenced based discussion is avoided when those who know the evidence show up. Its best to find some reason, any reason, to dismiss them entirely and maintain the conspiracy at any and all costs, correct?

I'd love for you to actually prove me wrong by discussing your view point as you claim you can.

Please, share with us all this enrapturing tale of logic and evidence that leads us to view Jesus as a myth?

Or, as charged ... it's probably not actually there is it?

Unless, like any good conspiracy theorist, who will now dump me onto a myther website, where I will be happy to demonstrate where the claims most likely originate from Wells' debauched narrative. A fully discredited narrative.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So, the gist of your rebuttal is that listing examples of Ph.D's who unanimously dismiss Jesus Mythery as bizarre is a rant against atheists?

Nah. My rebuttal is that I'm not interested in listening to another HJer rant about how the atheists are all out to get Jesus.

It would appear instead that what you are employing is a simple ad hominem. Your argument is without merit because you are a bigot!

Call me when you calm down.

 

[gree0232]

Nah. My rebuttal is that I'm not interested in listening to another HJer rant about how the atheists are all out to get Jesus.



Call me when you calm down.

Then WHF are you on a debate forum? In a thread about Jesus Mythery?

Illogical much?

So let me make a prediction, as this is following an establish myther pattern.

At some point, these personalized antidotes and brazen insults will simply be about drawing some kind of response, correct?

And that response will, of course, be reported to the mods where we can continue the previous accusations of bigotry and anti-atheist oppression? Where rebutting a premise that even the majority of atheists reject is somehow anti-atheist bigotry ... or so the conspiratorial nonsense claims.

The real goal? Jesus is a Myth because you are a flawed human being.

And that is the 'actual' support of the Jesus Myth.

It stands in sharp contrast to the lack of evidence or argumentation offered in support of the Jesus Myth ...

Of course, the mythers COULD make such a case ... if ONLY they were interested in the subject ... which voluntarily participating in a discussion about and DARING people to challenge them on is actually conveying severe disinterest in the subject ... a disinterest only expressed after the challenge is accepted and it appears to have been accepted y someone who has actually studied the subject ... oops.

I am sure the sudden disinterest is entirely ... genuine. :beach:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Im waiting for you to state "your served" with all the dancing around the exact topic.

OK. Try offering a replacement hypothesis for the things we know about Jesus.

Then I'll show how your replacement hypothesis is in error.

 

[gree0232]

OK. Try offering a replacement hypothesis for the things we know about Jesus.

Then I'll show how your replacement hypothesis is in error.

That would be your job as you are the one rejecting the consensus opinion about historical Jesus on.

I am not sure you understand how debate actually works AG?

My hypothesis is that Jesus was real. WTF would I need to come up with an alternate theory and support that?

You are the one who is claiming an alternate theory.

Brother, even among the MANY mythers I have taken on, that claim or demand stands as among the most illogical I have seen - and that is saying something.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Of course, the mythers COULD make such a case ... if ONLY they were interested in the subject ... which voluntarily participating in a discussion about and DARING people to challenge them on is actually conveying severe disinterest in the subject ... a disinterest only expressed after the challenge is accepted and it appears to have been accepted y someone who has actually studied the subject ... oops.

I am sure the sudden disinterest is entirely ... genuine. :beach:

You might want to look up the word 'disinterest'. The original, uncorrupted meaning. It's still #1 in most dictionary entries, I'm guessing.

It means 'not being influenced by personal involvement in something.'

I recommend disinterest to you regarding the historical Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Brother, even among the MANY mythers I have taken on, that claim or demand stands as among the most illogical I have seen - and that is saying something.

I'm sure you are a mighty myther slayer.

 

[gree0232]

You might want to look up the word 'disinterest'. The original, uncorrupted meaning. It's still #1 in most dictionary entries, I'm guessing.

It means 'not being influenced by personal involvement in something.'

I recommend disinterest to you regarding the historical Jesus.

And here you are participating in a discussion about the very thing you are apparently disinterested in ... and brazen enough to reject UNANIMOUS expert consensus opinion about while insulting people when they ... er, engage in the discussion you have no interest in?

I'd say your excuses are rolling only yourself.

But that is generally the reality of conspiracy. Your atheism and biases against religion are very much a personal choice and they are very much influencing your 'opinion' on the subject.

But thank you for the emotive disparagement of this listing three atheist scholars, even though they are Christian, and pretending that the Christian is the biased one.

Conspiracy.

Please, more excuses. I'll happily poke holes in them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And here you are participating in a discussion about the very thing you are apparently disinterested in ...

Yes, I'm disinterested in most everything. It comes with loving truth more than ego.

 

[gree0232]

I'm sure you are a mighty myther slayer.

and the prediction that you would continue on a personal campaign of flame bait, with intent to, no doubt, involve mods at some point, rather than actually rebut something?

Must be wrong ...

Must be wrong ...

No way this could be a pattern?

Let me know when you calm down enough to actually make a case with some thought behind it. As those types of observations are apparently desirable.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm sure you are a mighty myther slayer.

LOL, now that was funny.

 

[gree0232]

Yes, I'm disinterested in most everything. It comes with loving truth more than ego.

Than a debate forum where you advocate conspiracy rather than truth is wrong place for you.

Conspiracy theorists often believe they 'know' the truth by dint of their magical but totally unsupported claims. We'll just take your conclusions without evidence, on faith, and reject unanimous expert opinion and our studies in favor of conspiratorial magic ... simply because you have claimed, self servingly, that you love the truth ...

Aw ... that was very Glenn Beckish of you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

LOL, now that was funny.

Thanks, but I get some pretty easy straight lines around here. It's easy to be funny.