Feel free to step up :yes:
-
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
Feel free to step up :yes:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I recommend that you give up your conspiracy theories about Jesus and try to think clearly and independently about the actual evidence. That's what I do. It's why my Jesus Theory is so much stronger than anyone else's.
Interesting. I would imagine that when I start poking fun of you, tin foil hat and all, it won't be considered funny?
The tin foil hat being the joke of course ... or is it? :sorry1:
Agh the "Deny everything make counter accusations!" ploy ...
I am sure, having presented no evidence, having resorted to ad hominem and disinterest, while notably rejecting three atheist period scholars, and employing the tried and true practices of conrpiacy ... that .. like any good conspiracy theorist ... it must be the OTHER guy that is the conspiracy theorist ... those ACTUALLY making a claim and logically supporting it in the conspiracy theorist?
Agh, the creative writing of tin foil hat wearing wonks is so much fun to poke holes in.
Ladies and Gents ... I give you the Jesus Myth ... supported by ... I know you are but what am I ...
Heh, that's Harvard calling .. they want you as a professor of history! Really!
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Relax, man. No one here is out to get your Jesus.
Oh, so the jokes are NOT funny when aimed at you?
Now THAT is funny!
Besides, how can you 'get' something when you don't even think its real? Logic.
I agree.
Staunch affirmation is every bit as illogical as staunch denial. We an both see things we want to and avoid that which we do not want to see ...
Its why the strength of the argument actually matters.
And, IMHO, the case for Jesus Mythery is exceptionally weak.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Indeed. Ambiguity is the only reliable path to wisdom.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Ummmm.... I don't know. Why don't you try telling a joke about me and we'll see?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm curious -- can you actually describe the 'case for Jesus Mythery'?
200 words or so. A hundred words. Fifty.
I'd be most interested to read it.
Far be it from me to try and convince you of anything. If you read The Bible for its historical content then all I can say is, knock yourself out, read The Bible as if Jesus is historical, I hope you find what you are looking for.
I am sorry, I laid that case out FOR you in DIRECT RESPONSE to your challenge and you called it bigotry.
I then shortened it in response to the vacuous claim and you ignored it.
I have met my obligations conspiracy theorist.
Its now up to you to rebut them, not pull an ostrich.
Feel free to explain why atheists Michael Grant, Will Durant (who are NT scholars), and Bart Erhman, agnostic and also a NT scholar, are wrong ... and bigots too boot!
This fascinating narrative of yours should be quite the read ... er, if you ever make a case rather than a series of excuses at any rate.
Please regale us with tales of wanton whoa in which poor, poor atheists (a few at any rate, who apparently define the position for Jesus for ALL atheists) ave endured such a painstaking and informative study oddly involving not a single piece of evidence and the sheer nastiness of the resulting criticism of the position which is so unfair and difficult to endure.
Please share this rival to Les Miserables ...
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Only for you.
Why, in a historical sense, would I treat the Bible as anything other than a potential source of history?
Would I disregard the works of Plato simply because I don't like his religious beliefs?
But tell me, as the Pauline Epistles have, in many cases, been substantiated as genuine (which means Paul was real) and we can then use these authenticated letter to validate the Synoptic gospels (if not their authorship, then at least their accuracy) and there were indeed Apostles ... and this was the beginning of what has become the world's most successful religion ...
Would it not make sense to apply PROFESSIONAL historical standards to these events and attempt to tease out the MOST likely truths just as we do for any other bit of history? Especially those that have had a major impact on human history?
Does it make more sense to allow of current religious biases to simply dismiss the entire process to ignore it and fail to understand it because we don't want to understand something that might disagree with our current faith choice? Do you honestly believe in letting personal biases pollute historical examination?
You tell me brother, which is the most logical approach?
A. Approach Christianity like any other historical event and apply the standards of the profession when weighing its documents and use things like peer review to maintain objectivity in assessment.
B. Simply dismiss the process in a giant hand wave.
You tell me which is more logical. And then feel free to explain by atheist period scholars have unanimously chosen the former, and why they agree that, at the very least, Jesus is a historical personage.
The idea that you, a non-expert, find this process distasteful, is hardly a sound reason to reject professional history is it?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Please don't claim untrue things about what I've said. It's unChristian.
I don't remember you posting your conspiracy theory about the historical Jesus, but I'm sure it's a wonderful and compelling thing. Hope you're happy with it.
They are bigots? Why, exactly?
If they disagree with my HJ Theory, they're wrong because they don't think correctly. But that's all I can say. I have no idea what they actually think. They may agree with me for all I know.
Anyway, if you ever feel ready to describe the 'case for Jesus Mythery', I'll be curious to read it.
As much as you rail against it, I would think you might be able to describe it.
ROFL!!! :run:
There has been no lie conspiracy theorist.
Let me know when you are ready to move beyond tin foil hat wearing nonsense.
Again, Erhman, Grant, Durant.
Lies all Lies .. dambed lies and statistics is not a rebuttal.
Not that I actually expect a threatened conspiracy theorist to actually lay out his BS and risk having to expose his ideas to rebuttal and examination ... no sir, conspiracy theorists avoid that like they do hot girls on a dance floor.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, anyone who claims to know the truth about the historical Jesus is an unwise man.
outhouse
Atheistically
Another ambiguous quote which proves my point. You like other mythicist, only can attack the messenger.
Its all mythicst have in their arsenal