did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

faith would not have cut it anyway

you cant prove a myth is real either allthough christians have tried for thousands of years lol

o yes you alone have single-handedly mastered the reasons why jesus is a myth and no one should believe and it's all a lie

booga wooga

 

[angellous_evangellous]

copy this:

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

LOL

minority, I may be. The numbers are growing rapidly on my side of the fence though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

LOL

minority, I may be. The numbers are growing rapidly on my side of the fence though.

Yes, all those who see that stupid list. :biglaugh:

I can assure you those people on your side of the fence have no measurable knowledge of historical methods.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*buys outhouse a beer*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

LOL

minority, I may be. The numbers are growing rapidly on my side of the fence though.

Please, for the love of Pete, root for the Rangers tomorrow.

First World Series ever - Nolan Ryan is an owner - and they have the best pitching staff and batting lineup ever.

 

[jalil]

Jesus didn't exist.

 

[Oberon]

its funny, the only arguement he has for the parrallels of jesus is that we did'nt read the original doc's,

No it isn't. It's that the parallels you are reading about for the most part don't exist, because your sources are wrong. That's the problem with depending on sensationalist websites and not having any background knowledge. You don't know if what you are reading is accurate because you haven't read the primary texts (which would enable you to point to your nice little summaries and say "wait a minute... this isn't represented in the myth of buddha or krishna or whoeer), and you can't rely on the knowledge and expertise of the person who wrote what you are reading because they don't have any.

 

[Oberon]

Yes! Have you read "The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg et al?

I had the pleasure of talking with him at length about his many works on Q and my dissertation last November (time flies!!).

Anyway, that's the most excellent work on Q that will be produced for quite a while - Kloppenborg has sworn it off - it's an Abington commentary, published in 2007 if memory serves.

That's the international Q project's work right (robinson, hoffmann, and kloppenborg)? I checked it out a while ago but never read the whole thing. It's on my to do list. I did read Kloppenborgs Excavating Q.

 

[outhouse]

No it isn't. It's that the parallels you are reading about for the most part don't exist, because your sources are wrong. That's the problem with depending on sensationalist websites and not having any background knowledge. You don't know if what you are reading is accurate because you haven't read the primary texts (which would enable you to point to your nice little summaries and say "wait a minute... this isn't represented in the myth of buddha or krishna or whoeer), and you can't rely on the knowledge and expertise of the person who wrote what you are reading because they don't have any.

mithras did have many text to interpit

 

[dogsgod]

The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg

Is the book written in English?

 

[Oberon]

mithras did have many text to interpit

What does this even mean?

 

[outhouse]

didnt have allot of original text. sorry on the phone typing to fast lol

Now if you REALLY knew ancient history you would know this LOL

 

[Oberon]

The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg

Is the book written in English?

Once again, here is the issue: Q and Markan priority are by no means universally accepted (see e.g. Flusser, D. Jesus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969, revised 1998; Hengel, M. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. London: SCM, 2000; Farmer, William. The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964; Mann, C. S. Mark. Anchor Bible 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986; Goulder, M. D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974.)

In other words, there have been and continue to be arguments for and against.

The problem for you is that
1) Evaluating these arguments requires knowledge of Greek
2) You haven't even read them.

So why do you acccept Q and markan priority? Because you just hopped on that consensus bandwagon.

 

[dogsgod]

Once again, here is the issue: Q and Markan priority are by no means universally accepted (see e.g. Flusser, D. Jesus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969, revised 1998; Hengel, M. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. London: SCM, 2000; Farmer, William. The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964; Mann, C. S. Mark. Anchor Bible 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986; Goulder, M. D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974.)

In other words, there have been and continue to be arguments for and against.

The problem for you is that
1) Evaluating these arguments requires knowledge of Greek
2) You haven't even read them.

So why do you acccept Q and markan priority? Because you just hopped on that consensus bandwagon.

I asked if the book was written in English.

 

[Oberon]

I asked if the book was written in English.

I was addressing what was behind the question. And, by the way, still waiting for an explanation as to why you can jump on the Q and Markan priority bandwagons, but then ignore the fact that there are virtually no experts who study ancient history who accept the mythicist hypothesis.

 

[outhouse]

The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg

Is the book written in English?

wouldnt that be a big YES?

As well as a few other languages laid out with the original transcripts so one can use it as a valuable tool LOL

english, greek, french and german

 

[dogsgod]

wouldnt that be a big YES?

As well as a few other languages laid out with the original transcripts so one can use it as a valuable tool LOL

english, greek, french and german

I can only read English and so I'm oblivious as to why the synoptic problem is called a problem, and how it is that Q is hypothetical. Anyone that can only read English has no other choice but to jump on the first available bandwagon that comes along as it regards these matters. If only I could read Greek, then I could be a believer like Oberon.:sarcastic

 

[dogsgod]

Once again, here is the issue: Q and Markan priority are by no means universally accepted (see e.g. Flusser, D. Jesus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969, revised 1998; Hengel, M. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. London: SCM, 2000; Farmer, William. The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964; Mann, C. S. Mark. Anchor Bible 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986; Goulder, M. D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974.)

In other words, there have been and continue to be arguments for and against.

The problem for you is that
1) Evaluating these arguments requires knowledge of Greek
2) You haven't even read them.

So why do you acccept Q and markan priority? Because you just hopped on that consensus bandwagon.

Because I only speak English. I don't know the meaning of the word synoptic or how it is a problem so I must jump on the band wagon. No one in English can explain what hypothetical means and the implications of that as it concerns Q so again I jump on the band wagon. It's an English only band wagon.

 

[Oberon]

I can only read English and so I'm oblivious as to why the synoptic problem is called a problem, and how it is that Q is hypothetical.

1) You can't read the greek upon which all the arguments are based
2) you haven't actually read any scholarship arguing for q. All you've read is short statements that summarize the more complex issues and present the consensus view.

But despite this, you have no problem jumping on the consensus bandwagon. Why? Because you aren't the unbiased critical investigator you pretend to be. You are perfectly happy to accept consensus when it fits your preconceived views.