outhouse
Atheistically
exactly
rebirth, karma, samsara, mahayana ect ect ect not all truths
Its all guesses/lies
-
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!
did jesus exist?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
exactly
rebirth, karma, samsara, mahayana ect ect ect not all truths
Its all guesses/lies
outhouse
Atheistically
thus, he does not care
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ignorance is bliss, after all.
I've cited plenty of academic works to support my views.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
(I wasn't talking about you)
I didn't think so I was responding to dogsgod. Sorry!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
hahaha
For me, ignorance is painful. Some people enjoy it, but I'm painfully aware of my limits.
outhouse
Atheistically
SO young know it alls
based on a stolen religion theres this dead jesus cat, people start telling storys about him for a good 10 years before these storys get written down in eschatological material and son of man material, maybe 10-15 ish years after the cat is smoked, written down by a unknown author known as Qtip, maybe theres a thomas tale attached to this that pops up 25 ish years later. 5 years ish pass since Qtips original work and Qtip's work gets a little more work done known as late strada codified Qtip. NOW the earliest work of unknown author called mark start showing up on the scene a good 37 years after historical jesus was smoked. later on luke copies a little Qtip and a little mark. Mat copies a little Qtip which later turns out in a augmented mark in the second century. Throw in a little sercet mark and carporcration mark and WE FINALY GET canonical mark in which the NT is based
IF historical jesus appears in palestines as a self taught traveling teacher who is hated becauses hes cocky to the local religious leaders. He tells everyone gods kingdom is coming and because he is a hotshot miracle worker and tells people by this, the kingdom is already here. deemed a revolutionary and killed for theatening the authority of current religious leaders.
And you think im crazy for thinking the jesus we know today as the son of god is a myth.
You boys better get that checked with a doctor before it grows
based on a stolen religion theres this dead jesus cat, people start telling storys about him for a good 10 years before these storys get written down in eschatological material and son of man material, maybe 10-15 ish years after the cat is smoked, written down by a unknown author known as Qtip, maybe theres a thomas tale attached to this that pops up 25 ish years later. 5 years ish pass since Qtips original work and Qtip's work gets a little more work done known as late strada codified Qtip. NOW the earliest work of unknown author called mark start showing up on the scene a good 37 years after historical jesus was smoked. later on luke copies a little Qtip and a little mark. Mat copies a little Qtip which later turns out in a augmented mark in the second century. Throw in a little sercet mark and carporcration mark and WE FINALY GET canonical mark in which the NT is based
IF historical jesus appears in palestines as a self taught traveling teacher who is hated becauses hes cocky to the local religious leaders. He tells everyone gods kingdom is coming and because he is a hotshot miracle worker and tells people by this, the kingdom is already here. deemed a revolutionary and killed for theatening the authority of current religious leaders.
And you think im crazy for thinking the jesus we know today as the son of god is a myth.
You boys better get that checked with a doctor before it grows
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
It's not over 'till it's over but things are not looking good for the Rangers. I'd send you frubles to cheer you up but somehow most of mine have disappeared and my fruble power is a mere 1 point anyways. Game 5 tomorrow, Monday.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You don't have to prove Jesus exists to see that coming.
The Rangers played great all season, and even better when they beat the Yankees in the AL playoffs. Now they are playing like a bunch of monkeys. Josh Hamilton is rocking it out, but for the most part these aren't the Rangers that were playing just a few weeks ago.
logician
Well-Known Member
ROFLMAO Again you push and push the "my scholars are better than your scholars" argument ad infinitum. You have nothing else. The idea that you think it is "foolish" that I expect at least one if not more than one contempary historian to write about a supposed Jesus is quite quaint. Especially since he was supposedly "followed by multitudes", had a high-profile trial, and did many wonders and miracles.
Or is this the biblical Jesus we're talking about, or someone else entirely?
outhouse
Atheistically
I love this, sums up how cocky little kids playing scholars get it wrong on a daily basis
So by using the same tools as other historians, the HJ scholars can pretend they are also like real historians. The difference is, of course, that whereas real historians seek to explain the facts they have, HJ historians are trying to find some facts to begin with.
This is normally what archaeologists try to do, only their tools and targets are quite different of course. Historians generally then do history on the facts uncovered by the archaeologists.
So the way this game is played is to take the real tools used by the other historians that were designed to be used to analyse and explain the primary evidence, the known facts, and to use these tools to try to find some facts.
So when HJ scholars use normative tools of historians they are a little like children play doctors and nurses with real medicines and needles, only children at least know what the medicines and needles they have furtively acquired are to be used for.
Games Historical Jesus Scholars Play « Vridar
So by using the same tools as other historians, the HJ scholars can pretend they are also like real historians. The difference is, of course, that whereas real historians seek to explain the facts they have, HJ historians are trying to find some facts to begin with.
This is normally what archaeologists try to do, only their tools and targets are quite different of course. Historians generally then do history on the facts uncovered by the archaeologists.
So the way this game is played is to take the real tools used by the other historians that were designed to be used to analyse and explain the primary evidence, the known facts, and to use these tools to try to find some facts.
So when HJ scholars use normative tools of historians they are a little like children play doctors and nurses with real medicines and needles, only children at least know what the medicines and needles they have furtively acquired are to be used for.
Games Historical Jesus Scholars Play « Vridar
Your scholars? What scholars? You don't use any.
And I have plenty- four bioi/vitae written within about 2 generations. Clear early evidence of a religious movement which placed its historic founder in a specific recent place and time, unlike ANY of the cults you compare jesus to. Letters from a contemporary of jesus who knew his followers and at least one m/ember of Jesus' family. 2 first century non-christian historians who refer to jesus, one of whom in the context of Jesus' brother's trial (a brother attested to by Paul, who knew him, and Mark/Matthew), which he was around for. This is much more than needed to determine historicity. Paul and josephus alone would be enough. And that's not even getting into Thallus or the rabbinic writings.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Well, it's what most scholars do. A large part of what we think we know about "history" is second hand, third hand....
Does any of this "prove" Yeshua existed?....Nope
Is any of this evidence of his existence?.....Possibly
Is the supposed existence of Yeshua conclusive given the evidence?.....Nope
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
there is much scholarly opinion that the NT is indeed unreliable, Virtually none of it peer-reviewed, and a minority of it non-Christian
Last edited:
Not completely, no. For example, Paul's acquaintence with Jesus' brother is first hand. And there isn't anything inherently wrong with second hand accounts. Ever read a history book by someone who wasn't there? That's a second or third hand account.
1) What makes it scholarly?
2) What scholarly opinion are you talking about? You haven't read any scholarship.
3) All of ancient history is unreliable to varying degrees, and most scholars, christian or no, don't believe the NT is anywhere near entirely reliable. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist.
outhouse
Atheistically
And this is still where most of the information comes from, to base allot your non biblical sources even according to you by the statement below, your contradicting yourself. you loose credibilty
True, sometimes second hand accounts can ring more truth then primary, when it comes to religion however only certain examples can be used with certainty. As a whole theres only so much you can drag out.