Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think baseless speculation is of little worth.

I disagree. You are welcome to post as much baseless speculation about Jesus as you like, although I will press you for evidence and rational support.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah, agreed. And all the narrative points to Jesus either surviving the cross or resurrection, otherwise it's speculation.

Well, except that all the narrative points to my own 'most likely scenario' else it is baseless speculation!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A certain member got slaughtered and gave them up.

I never slaughter my opponents but only trounce their feeble argumentation. It's because I'm so polite.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, except that all the narrative points to my own 'most likely scenario' else it is baseless speculation!

Yes, I get the sarcasm. It's interesting how many historicists, imo, are caught between claiming religious truths and baseless speculation.

 

[Prophet]

No, that's not true. You were sidetracked into ad hominem and still can't seem to find your way back to the actual issue.

So are you ready to engage a discussion of the crucifixion?

A denial of what I say without support doesn't render it false. A statement of how you see things without support doesn't render your thoughts true. Even now while you're pretending you want to get back to the debate with me, you're still baselessly accusing me of ad hominem. You're calling me a slanderer and making yourself a slanderer and a hypocrite in the process.

I skimmed your One-on-One against Technomage. He pounded you worse than you're getting pounded right now. That you proudly advertise your having received the debate equivalent of rape is beyond me.

 

[Desert Snake]

Prophet did I miss your opinion/theory? Can't remember, want to brief me?

 

[Desert Snake]

:fishing:

............................

 

[outhouse]

Where? Where? You did not mention.... where?

From Israel. was your hint.


Trying to see if you have the ability to research the topic you like.

 

[Prophet]

I don't know if I presented it. I believe Jesus was a historical character who changed the course of history with his spiritual teaching after having an enlightenment experience, and taught with a goal that his friends could join him in enlightenment. In times of injustice, enlightened prophets are often stuck with the responsibility of speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves and are often murdered for doing so.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A denial of what I say without support doesn't render it false. A statement of how you see things without support doesn't render your thoughts true. Even now while you're pretending you want to get back to the debate with me, you're still baselessly accusing me of ad hominem. You're calling me a slanderer and making yourself a slanderer and a hypocrite in the process.

I skimmed your One-on-One against Technomage. He pounded you worse than you're getting pounded right now. That you proudly advertise your having received the debate equivalent of rape is beyond me.

Any time you'd like to drop the ad hominem and get back to the crucifixion, I will be happy to engage you.

Do you know anything at all about these matters? What's your view of the Q source? Why do you think that Paul never mentions a contemporary Jesus? What do you think of the synoptics? Did Paul actually grow up in Jerusalem, or was that nonsense bragging by Luke?

What exactly do you know about all of this, prophet? Why not show us?

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't get how anyone thinks their wild speculation is more plausible than ...
a.apostles or witness Gospelship
b.mythic in entirety....they're halfway there already!

 

[outhouse]

I don't know if I presented it. I believe Jesus was a historical character who changed the course of history with his spiritual teaching after having an enlightenment experience, and taught with a goal that his friends could join him in enlightenment. In times of injustice, enlightened prophets are often stuck with the responsibility of speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves and are often murdered for doing so.

How about a Galilean peasant who took over a movement when its leader was killed.

He taught and healed and took a trip to the temple at Passover where he was killed and martyred after his death by people who never knew or heard him.


As time went by legends grew into mythology absorbing many elements from many religious practices to please as many people as it could. This NEW movement did not resemble the original movement in any way. The books all written had parables and teachings that may have gone back to Galilee, but there is little to no tie that can be made to the Galilean peasant known as jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

How about a Galilean peasant who took over a movement when its leader was killed.

Not bad.

He taught and healed and took a trip to the temple at Passover where he was killed and martyred after his death by people who never knew or heard him.

The outline is there, but ....weakish.

As time went by legends grew into mythology absorbing many elements from many religious practices to please as many people as it could. This NEW movement did not resemble the original movement in any way. The books all written had parables and teachings that may have gone back to Galilee, but there is little to no tie that can be made to the Galilean peasant known as jesus.

You could have written this 20 months ago. No movement forward at all. Old hat.

 

[oldbadger]

From Israel. was your hint.


Trying to see if you have the ability to research the topic you like.

'twas utter drivvel.

1. Development of Harris lines is actually associated with accelerated rates of linear growth and is part of the normal growth process. (Magennis 1990)

2. No findings in Galilee.

3. Any cessation of growth for hundreds of possible reasons will cause development of the line.

You are surely the master of one-liners. Talking about malnutrition, if you had needed to survive as an investigator you would surely have starved to death, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't get how anyone thinks their wild speculation is more plausible than ...
a.apostles or witness Gospelship
b.mythic in entirety....they're halfway there already!

Are you a myther?

 

[Prophet]

How about a Galilean peasant who took over a movement when its leader was killed.

Maybe, but whether Jesus had a following before JtB was executed is fairly up in the air.

He taught and healed and took a trip to the temple at Passover where he was killed and martyred after his death by people who never knew or heard him.

As time went by legends grew into mythology absorbing many elements from many religious practices to please as many people as it could. This NEW movement did not resemble the original movement in any way. The books all written had parables and teachings that may have gone back to Galilee, but there is little to no tie that can be made to the Galilean peasant known as jesus.

I agree to some extent. Yes, Jesus is honored as a martyr by people who never knew him or really understood his message. Today, people call themselves Christians who would have taken part in Jesus' murder were they born in his time. Jesus clearly accuses the religious establishment of always doing this:

29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

Many people who call themselves "Christian" today are the ideological progeny of the lawgivers Jesus openly mocked and dared to murder him.

I highly recommend the Nag Hammadi library to anyone who wants a clearer image of a more authentic Christianity than is presented in the canonized Bible.

 

[Prophet]

Any time you'd like to drop the ad hominem and get back to the crucifixion, I will be happy to engage you.

You are disingenuously implying that I am the one introducing ad hominem into our debate, over and over, completely blind to the concept that accusing me of ad hominem without support actually is ad hominem. I'm really not talking about ad hominem. I'm a big boy who can take ad hominem attacks all day without crying about it... that is until the attacker accuses me of ad hominem. At that point, I'm talking about hypocrisy.

Do you know anything at all about these matters? What's your view of the Q source? Why do you think that Paul never mentions a contemporary Jesus? What do you think of the synoptics? Did Paul actually grow up in Jerusalem, or was that nonsense bragging by Luke?

What exactly do you know about all of this, prophet? Why not show us?

I have no understanding of how you think any of these issues gives your denialist platform a clear advantage over the orthodox HJ. Were you to make it clear how you think these issues grant your theory a clear advantage, I may start debating you on all of that.

But then again, maybe not. Frankly, debate-wise, I'm world class and you're bush league. I need competition at my own level, and you are not it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But then again, maybe not. Frankly, debate-wise, I'm world class and you're bush league. I need competition at my own level, and you are not it.

Oh, my. You know, I have some memory of you from before. You were the one who considered yourself enlightened... yes? I mean, really enlightened?

 

[fantome profane]

Are you a myther?

I have been trying to discern disciples position myself. And what I think he is trying to say is "all or nothing". That is to say that if you believe there was a historical Jesus then you must also accept the narrative that he walked on water, made wine from water, and came back from the dead. I think this is nonsense, and I sincerely apologize to him if this is wrong. But I have found it difficult to understand him.

 

[Prophet]

Oh, my. You know, I have some memory of you from before. You were the one who considered yourself enlightened... yes? I mean, really enlightened?

You're attempting to paint me as an insane person. This technique is called "ad hominem" and is often used by rhetoricians who are rapidly losing control of the argument to their opponents. The reason rhetoricians employ this tactic while they are losing battles is two-fold: 1) to distract attention from the embarrassing defeat they are experiencing (and, let's face it, nothing is more humiliating than being exposed as a hypocrite) and 2) to lend the appearance of false strength to themselves.

^see what a non-slanderous, non-hypocritical charge of ad hominem looks like?