AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Actually not. Do you know what 'OP' means? Original post. You should go and read the OP in this thread if you want to understand what it's about.
-
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
Actually not. Do you know what 'OP' means? Original post. You should go and read the OP in this thread if you want to understand what it's about.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That didn't take long.
Whadya mean? !
That took a whole three lines.
Two lines too many.
Whadya mean? !
That took a whole three lines.
Two lines too many.
And that is why Jesus isn't real ... :ignore:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't dismiss scholar's findings or discoveries. I dismiss many scholars opinions, as do you, my friend.
But I don't trawl for 'bits and pieces' like you do. You even dig up writings from scholars you don't know, as shown already on this thread.
Please put your case, from your own pov...... beyond life, baptism, temple rumpus and execution. That is accepted by me and most scholars. What else have you got?
Let's start with G-Mark. I propose that most of it is factual..... what do you say?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but if you atheist Jesus Mythers had any evidence at all, I think you'd go ahead and present it here in public.
Is there somewhere I can write your Pastor Grunt or whatever his name is and ask if HE has any such proof?
Well, if I reject a scholars opinion ... much less EVERY period scholars opinion, I can usually explain why.
That explanation has never involved making something up and presenting the guilt by association fallacy as an explanation. Not even once.
Lets start with the Pauline Epistles as these are authenticated and form the basis of the authentication of much of the Biblical record ... which is reinforced by extra Biblical sources AND archeology.
That seems a better place to begin, as it will inform the narrative of the Synoptic gospels.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yet you have admited you dismiss their findings.
I do not find that to be true.
I follow what is known with certainty almost completely.
What your mistaken about is not findings at all, it is their personal opinions which they claim as opinion, where I do in fact, state I have a different one.
Your approach is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I only read the above....... no need to read more.
You seem to have no investigative ability.
I will teach you a simple lesson.
Look carefully at my title. Go on...... up you go.....
I am a Deist. Do you know what that is?
Lesson over.
Gotcha!!! :biglaugh:
That was so easy. What a pushover your posts are.
I only read the above....... no need to read more.
You seem to have no investigative ability.
I will teach you a simple lesson.
Look carefully at my title. Go on...... up you go.....
I am a Deist. Do you know what that is?
Lesson over.
Gotcha!!! :biglaugh:
That was so easy. What a pushover your posts are.
Agh the leap from the guilt by association fallacy to simple ad hominem.
Do you really think I have no idea what a diest is?
Do you think that a religious term that was popularized in the French Revolution several hundred years ago is a personal revelation that no one else would understand?
And that makes the guilt by association fallacy acceptable does it?
That makes the evidence for Jesus clearly indicate fraud does it?
A diest is supposed to rely on reason and observation correct?
What does your reason tell you when you observe a overt, and frankly insulting, fallacy?
A fallacy that doesn't actually disprove historical Jesus in the slightest?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
...... as do you....!! You disagree with many scholars' findings and opinions. But so far, you haven't named a scholar that you agree entirely with, have you?
Birth, life, baptism, temple rumpus and execution. But you like to add so much to that..... the dogs eating his body in the pit, etc.... and other colourful additions.
.... so you do what I do....... !!!
That's your opinion. I accept most of G-Mark... no bathwater..... no baby to chuck out. Do you?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I only read the above....... no need to read more.
You seem to have no investigative ability.
I will teach you a simple lesson.
Look carefully at my title. Go on...... up you go.....
I am a Deist. Do you know what that is?
Lesson over.
As near as I can figure, all of his debate partners are atheists.
It makes things easier, I guess.
...... as do you....!! You disagree with many scholars' findings and opinions. But so far, you haven't named a scholar that you agree entirely with, have you?
Birth, life, baptism, temple rumpus and execution. But you like to add so much to that..... the dogs eating his body in the pit, etc.... and other colourful additions.
.... so you do what I do....... !!!
That's your opinion. I accept most of G-Mark... no bathwater..... no baby to chuck out. Do you?
Michael Grant.
William Durant.
Bart Erhman.
I agree with each of the agnostic/atheism scholars and their opinion that, at the very least, Jesus was areal person and a fascinating genesis at the center of a major world religion.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't think you've got much idea at all, friend.
A deist is not an atheist..... that's a good place for you to start.
You need to remember that.
When you're ready, I'll tell you about Yeshua, one of the most wonderful people who has lived. If you read G-Mark you won't need me to tell you anything...... why don't you get reading?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you know what......... our debates have always been acidic affairs, but after recent posts I think you're quite moderate!
Well, we have another ad hominem. We needed that rather an explanation as to how the thing you just made up is actually better scholarship than actual scholarship.
Clearly, my assessment that you think anyone who disagrees with you a a flaming moron was WAAAAAYY off base.
Now, I wonder, as a diest committed to reason and all ... how do you think I arrived at that accurate assessment of your intent? :sarcastic
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Do you know what......... our debates have always been acidic affairs, but after recent posts I think you're quite moderate!
When the Martians land, earthlings look at each other and see that they aren't so alien to each other as they'd once thought.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Click....... Hail Earthling..... Greetings!
But I still think Yeshua was real....... he he.....
Click....... Hail Earthling..... Greetings!
But I still think Yeshua was real....... he he.....
And the imaginary antics of an old badger explain why scholars and period experts are ALL wrong.
Again, the point about the meandering discovery process required to be a Jesus Myther are aptly represented here.
Click....... Hail Earthling..... Greetings!
But I still think Yeshua was real....... he he.....
I still don't know if Jesus was real or not, and I still don't know if it makes a difference to anything.
Last edited:
It does if you are Christian ... and the basis of your faith is actually fraudulent.
It means a great deal to some to expose those who falsely accuse others of things - like the Duke University LaCross players who were falsely accused of rape.
That was a kind of big deal for the both the accused and the accuser, if not those of us on the side lines.
Unfortunately, Jesus Mythers have basically accused over a billion people of deliberately perpetrating a fraud.
And the fraud? Appears to be the Jesus Myth.