did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

it must really bother you that theres not enough evidence to prove jesus, that you have to try and argue his existance

you sit and think to yourself if only they could see what I have then everyone would believe.

WE dont have christian blinders on, we see left, right, up and down.

 

[Oberon]

it must really bother you that theres not enough evidence to prove jesus

It doesn't. Because the people like you who assert than haven't studied this at all and don't know what they are talking about. As shown by the copy and paste job you just did.

 

[dogsgod]

it must really bother you that theres not enough evidence to prove jesus, that you have to try and argue his existance

you sit and think to yourself if only they could see what I have then everyone would believe.

WE dont have christian blinders on, we see left, right, up and down.

We don't read the epistles through gospel lenses either so we don't see the fantasy.

 

[dogsgod]

Our Christian indoctrination wore off, Oberon polishes his every day.

 

[Oberon]

Our Christian indoctrination wore off, Oberon polishes his every day.

1) Still waiting for your citations
2) Still waiting for you to explain why it's ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

[dogsgod]

1) Still waiting for your citations
2) Still waiting for you to explain why it's ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I answered already. I'm not going into scholarship ******* contests with you, been there, done that.

 

[dogsgod]

If Oberon is a non Christian as he claims, I would at least hope he is getting paid to evangelize for the Christian cause because it would be a shame if he's doing this for nothing.

 

[outhouse]

copy and paste, yes I do thank you.

That would be part of looking at the whole picture, scholars are not the answers to everything. Historians play a big part in recreating history.

It must be great for you to sit back and rewrite the bible as only you and your christian buddys see fit. you take the parts you like and ignore the rest make exuses for those and carry on like its ALL true.

You have only argued that I find christianity stolen fiction, and why im not qualified to learn anything! which is ludicrous. You cant post anything to reinforce the opposite.

so far your rebutle has been typical christian.

 

[Oberon]

I answered already. I'm not going into scholarship ******* contests with you, been there, done that.

No you didn't answer. You claimed you read some, but you can't name ANY. Which shows how hypocritical you are. Because your view is rejected by virtually everyone with any expertise in ancient history, you are forced to assert that consensus/virtual unanimity of experts doesn't mean anything. And you mock the whole idea by talking about the "bandwagon fallacy."

What is really funny is that at the same time you jump right on the bandwagon when it suits you.

You have failed to cite any academic work which convinced you that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark and Q. More importantly, you could read english scholarship on this issue until you are blue in the face but I wouldn't hep YOU determine because you can't read the greek upon which the arguments are based.

So instead, you jump right on the consensus bandwagon because in this case it doesn't run counter to your view.

You don't know enough about the issue to even defend the views you have which are correct, let alone the wrong ones.

 

[outhouse]

he plays that scholarship card so much it weakens his credibility.

his required reading to play in the thread was laughably weak and only ment to corral the conversation so that only he controls the gate.

 

[Oberon]

copy and paste, yes I do thank you
That would be part of looking at the whole picture, scholars are not the answers to everything. Historians play a big part in recreating history.

Let me get this straight. You are actually defending you complete ignorance of scholarship in ancient history by saying that part of the compete picture is to copy from websites when you have no idea how accurate they are? Really?

So your method is to claim that the experts who spend years studying in this and other areas don't know what they are talking about, but the websites you view are authoritative?

so far your rebutle has been typical christian.

You wouldn't really know, would you? You haven't read either christian or non-christian scholarship.

 

[dogsgod]

No you didn't answer. [You claimed you read some, but you can't name ANY. Which shows how hypocritical you are. Because your view is rejected by virtually everyone with any expertise in ancient history, you are forced to assert that consensus/virtual unanimity of experts doesn't mean anything. And you mock the whole idea by talking about the "bandwagon fallacy."

What is really funny is that at the same time you jump right on the bandwagon when it suits you.

You have failed to cite any academic work which convinced you that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark and Q. More importantly, you could read english scholarship on this issue until you are blue in the face but I wouldn't hep YOU determine because you can't read the greek upon which the arguments are based.

So instead, you jump right on the consensus bandwagon because in this case it doesn't run counter to your view.

You don't know enough about the issue to even defend the views you have which are correct, let alone the wrong ones.

Why would I cite scholarship just to have you tell me again that I can't read the Greek and therefore don't know the real arguments? You already stated this in a prior post and now you wonder why I don't care to get into a scholar p****** contest with you.

Do you think I'm as stupid as I look?

Do you think I give a rats as what you've read? Honestly? I don't think you have the ability to assess information. I don't think you have the ability to make the distinction between a peer reviewed journal and the National Enquirer, I honestly don't so I don't know why you bother.

 

[Oberon]

Why would I cite scholarship just to have you tell me again that I can't read the Greek and therefore don't know the real arguments?

Because at least then it wouldn't be as completely obvious that you are completely willing to jump on the consensus bandwagon if it supports the view you accepted in the first place, regardless of evidence.

You already stated this in a prior post and now you wonder why I don't care to get into a scholar p****** contest with you.

I don't wonder. You haven't read the scholarship. You just jumped on the bandwagon.

 

[dogsgod]

he plays that scholarship card so much it weakens his credibility.

his required reading to play in the thread was laughably weak and only ment to corral the conversation so that only he controls the gate.

You're right, now he thinks he's psychic.

 

[outhouse]

not all history comes from script, reading fiction in its own language doesnt make you a expert but in your own mind.

christianity is not original in any sense, if it were you MIGHT have a christian right wing view partially correct

 

[Oberon]

You're right, now he thinks he's psychic.

Still waiting to hear how you aren't just jumping on the consensus bandwagon. You can't read the greek to determine the arguments for Q or markan priority, nor have you read scholarship on the subject (or you would cite it), but why does that matter? The vast majority of experts believe that Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark, so you accept it. But even more think that Jesus was historical. But hey, that doesn't fit your preconceived notions. So while you are perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon elsewhere, here you'd rather rely on amateurs. Nice try.

 

[dogsgod]

not all history comes from script, reading fiction in its own language doesnt make you a expert but in your own mind.

christianity is not original in any sense, if it were you MIGHT have a christian right wing view partially correct

Oh well, at least as long as church state separation is maintained they can't burn us at the stake for doubting them. That must really bother them.

 

[Oberon]

Oh well, at least as long as church state separation is maintained they can't burn us at the stake for doubting them. That must really bother them.

Good call. You don't have facts on your side so go with ad hominem attacts. Like I'm christian, as is anyone who thinks jesus was historical.

When are we going to hear how your jumping on the Q and markan priority bandwagon is anything other than blindly following the consensus you insult because you can't read greek and haven't read the scholarship which you base your view on?

 

[dogsgod]

Good call. You don't have facts on your side so go with ad hominem attacts. Like I'm christian, as is anyone who thinks jesus was historical.

When are we going to hear how your jumping on the Q and markan priority bandwagon is anything other than blindly following the consensus you insult because you can't read greek and haven't read the scholarship which you base your view on?

You may call yourself a non Christian but your indoctrination is solid.

 

[Oberon]

You may call yourself a non Christian but your indoctrination is solid.

Apparently yours is. You are so adamant that the consensus is wrong and that jumping on the bandwagon is just sheep mentality. Yet this is exactly what you do. You have failed again and again to cite any academic sources you have read on Q or markan priority, and you can't assess them anyway because you don't read greek, but hey! Who cares? That's what most scholars belive, so it must be true.

Oh wait... don't you believe that the vast majority of scholars are wrong? So why do you jump on the bandwagon?