• 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!

The Jesus Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
That limitation is hardly an argument. You're looking at the situation with a mythicist bias through a 21st century lens. Is it similarly beyond your ability to believe that the Mishna was produced decades after the fact?
Click to expand...

If you want me to think of you as serious participant in this debate, you'll have to address me with at least a pretense of politeness.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
you can learn it from wiki and it wont get butchered the way I will.

you dont want to learn any facts?
Click to expand...

I glanced at the Wiki article. It seems so heavily biased that I couldn't possibly trust it. It tries to prove John's historicity by pointing to the Bible, for example.

It claims that John is mentioned in the Quran, as if that has the least bit to do with determining historicity. That's like saying that Robin Hood is historical since he's mentioned in a NYTimes article from 1982.

Nah, it's a PR piece. Most probably funded by Christianity.

But you're welcome to present your own case, in your own words, if you'd like to try that. Why do you think that John the Baptist was an actual historical figure?
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
AmbiguousGuy said:
I glanced at the Wiki article. It seems so heavily biased that I couldn't possibly trust it. It tries to prove John's historicity by pointing to the Bible, for example.

It claims that John is mentioned in the Quran, as if that has the least bit to do with determining historicity. That's like saying that Robin Hood is historical since he's mentioned in a NYTimes article from 1982.

Nah, it's a PR piece. Most probably funded by Christianity.

But you're welcome to present your own case, in your own words, if you'd like to try that. Why do you think that John the Baptist was an actual historical figure?
Click to expand...

Here ya go, second paragraph: Josephus on John the Baptizer
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jelly said:
well lets see what fallingblood has to say about my assessment of what he has said and cut the small talk?
or would you prefer to make snide comments?
Click to expand...

Snide?

Your vocabulary keeps expanding. Very impressive.

Yes, if there is a post of yours with substance, I'd love to see discussion on it.

So far my replies have been more than they deserve.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Hey Ambiguous -

I'll pretend to be polite and you can pretend that I'm Jay.

A younger, much better looking Jay.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Snide?

Your vocabulary keeps expanding. Very impressive.

Yes, if there is a post of yours with substance, I'd love to see discussion on it.

So far my replies have been more than they deserve.
Click to expand...
there have been many posts by me with substance, you have not noticed them.
here is one in particular that I think you might find interesting on page 109 that is a reply to a question fallingblood asked of me, but then again you probably already read it and decided not to comment.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jelly said:
are you lying intentionally?
you replied to a question I asked.
there was no predicate statement to you were responding to; your response was to my question!
to understand what I am claiming you have to read my posts in this link AND be sure to read up to post #919 (which is your post)----> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94384-jesus-myth-92.html#post2506535 <---

I have considered your OP..

there is no diffference between biblical jesus and historical jesus when it comes to existence.
there is no evidence that is not fabricated to completely assert (with any truth) that historical jesus/biblical jesus existed.
there is an abscence of evidence everywhere that is looked (with the exception of evidence that is fabricated) and the lack of evidence supports the claim "there is no evidence of jesus that is not fabricated".
are you happy?

since trolls like to argue and sometimes use incorrect assumptions I will explain to you why you are acting like a troll.

first, you assert your authority by mentioning you have some knowledge on the subject of "the Jesus Myth" AND you have the audacity to include the fact that you have written papers on the subject "the Jesus Myth" (which I think in your own mind confirms that you an authority on "the Jesus Myth"). Secondly, you assume that a historical jesus existed because there is a biblical jesus or you assume that a historical jesus existed because you just want to believe that a historical jesus existed (or you are a very good troll and believe niether, but I don't think you are a very good troll so I wont digress about your assumptions or beliefs because I think you are just an average person who is not aware they have been acting like a troll). Then, most trollfully, you attribute the real life name "jesus" to a historical jesus because you can then formulate the troll question (which is what trolls do). After you have all the peices of the troll puzzle together (for you the troll puzzle is as follows: a forum, a means to access the forum, a somewhat anonymous name to identify yourself, and a relative degree of comfort to post what you want) you compare your historical jesus to biblical jesus and think of the troll question to ask that would best descibe your disposition which is "is the Jesus Myth true?". Finally, you wait for people to respond to the bait (which is the troll question) and when people do you make stupid comments to assert that the troll question is a valid question to ask when in fact you just wanted to troll...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, this post is more substantial than all the others that I've seen. It's far more lucid than the other posts.

But rambling isn't the same thing as substance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top