The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

I thought this thread was about historical jesus and biblical jesus not jesus.

Your guess is as good as mine, man.

 

[jelly]

Well, OK. I feel like all my stress and responsibility have suddenly fallen away. Life will be easy now.

I would just like to add that while Angellous is the final arbiter of the scholarly consensus, I myself am the final judge of all truth. So if angellous and I disagree about the scholarly consensus, then he will have to concede. I trump him as the feds trump the locals.

But I will try to be gentle, working with him behind closed doors so as to avoid any public embarrassment.

It's just the way I am.

why save the embarrassment when this thread could reach a number higher than even flailing duds can count?

 

[jelly]

Your guess is as good as mine, man.

haha are you going to abductive reasoning all of a sudden?

 

[fallingblood]

biblical jesus didn't exist until the bible was written thus the name biblical jesus.
next thing you know the bible is the source of information for historical jesus, but only certain parts....

Wow. You really have no clue of what you're talking about do you?

 

[fallingblood]

I do. I think we should all just acknowledge that the historicity of Jesus has been thoroughly disproven here in this thread -- with massive evidence and irrefutable argumentation -- and move on to something more important.

That's funny, because, the two who have been arguing the most against the historicity of Jesus have only done so by making ignorant and asinine remarks.

The two of you (Jelly being the second), can't even form arguments against the historicity of Jesus. Granted, you have done so better than Jelly, but that really isn't saying much at all.

 

[jelly]

Wow. You really have no clue of what you're talking about do you?

when it comes to what you think?
probably not but I am going by what you have written.
are you suggesting that biblical jesus lived before the bible? if so who was historical jesus?

 

[jelly]

That's funny, because, the two who have been arguing the most against the historicity of Jesus have only done so by making ignorant and asinine remarks.

The two of you (Jelly being the second), can't even form arguments against the historicity of Jesus. Granted, you have done so better than Jelly, but that really isn't saying much at all.

which jesus do you want me to refute the existence of?

 

[fallingblood]

I thought this thread was about historical jesus and biblical jesus not jesus.

And you're the proof for my previous post. You have absolutely no idea what this thread about or any clue on the subject in general. Your lack is actually somewhat amazing.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, OK. I feel like all my stress and responsibility have suddenly fallen away. Life will be easy now.

I would just like to add that while Angellous is the final arbiter of the scholarly consensus, I myself am the final judge of all truth. So if angellous and I disagree about the scholarly consensus, then he will have to concede. I trump him as the feds trump the locals.

But I will try to be gentle, working with him behind closed doors so as to avoid any public embarrassment.

It's just the way I am.

Nope, because he's your daddy and you must respect his authority. Or we will have to stone you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's funny, because, the two who have been arguing the most against the historicity of Jesus have only done so by making ignorant and asinine remarks.

The two of you (Jelly being the second), can't even form arguments against the historicity of Jesus. Granted, you have done so better than Jelly, but that really isn't saying much at all.

If I'm unable to form proper arguments against the historicity of Jesus, why have you failed so miserably in countering them?

It seems curious.

As for ignorant and asinine remarks, you need to review the thread.

 

[jelly]

And you're the proof for my previous post. You have absolutely no idea what this thread about or any clue on the subject in general. Your lack is actually somewhat amazing.

hello, you are the one who is taking the position that historical jesus is not portrayed by the bible....
I was brought into this mess because of your "position"....

 

[fallingblood]

when it comes to what you think?
probably not but I am going by what you have written.
are you suggesting that biblical jesus lived before the bible? if so who was historical jesus?

You couldn't possibly be going by what I have written. This post shows that you haven't read what I have written, or at the very least, are unable to process it and comprehend it.

The two are not different people. You foolish attempt to separate them simply is laughable at best. They are the same person, just different perspectives on that figure.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope, because he's your daddy and you must respect his authority. Or we will have to stone you.

I haven't been stoned since the 70s, but Daddy knows best. I will stand still for it.

 

[idav]

Actually, most ancient figures have little known about their early lives. For the most part, it just wasn't recorded.

As for the young version of Jesus. There is little reason to believe that it is credible.

Perhaps but why find any of the other stories of Jesus credible when dealing with the miracles. The popular opinion of Jesus was he could do miracles? Why not at childhood? It is likely childhood stories were also being circulated around. What makes the infancy of jesus gospel less credible than gospel of matthew for example other than mere popularity since we don't really know of a historical jesus without gospels?

 

[fallingblood]

which jesus do you want me to refute the existence of?

You really just don't get it do you? The Biblical Jesus and Historical Jesus, at the basis, are the same figure. The difference is the perspective in how they are seen.

What I want you to refute is the existence of Jesus. Show us why there was no historical figure of Jesus.

 

[jelly]

You couldn't possibly be going by what I have written. This post shows that you haven't read what I have written, or at the very least, are unable to process it and comprehend it.

The two are not different people. You foolish attempt to separate them simply is laughable at best. They are the same person, just different perspectives on that figure.

oh i see so you have two perspectives about every figure? one out of the left eye and one out of the right eye?
how on earth do you see?

 

[fallingblood]

If I'm unable to form proper arguments against the historicity of Jesus, why have you failed so miserably in countering them?

It seems curious.

As for ignorant and asinine remarks, you need to review the thread.

That is quite funny. Because as it stands, I did refute your six points. You still have not even addressed the majority of my rebuttals, and the ones you did, it came down to ridiculous posts like the one I'm quoting of yours.

 

[jelly]

You really just don't get it do you? The Biblical Jesus and Historical Jesus, at the basis, are the same figure. The difference is the perspective in how they are seen.

What I want you to refute is the existence of Jesus. Show us why there was no historical figure of Jesus.

interesting... do you want me to show you why there was no historical jesus from which there is a historical jesus or do you want me to show you why there is no biblical...
heck why don't you think about your OP....
can you do that...?

 

[fallingblood]

hello, you are the one who is taking the position that historical jesus is not portrayed by the bible....
I was brought into this mess because of your "position"....

You have no idea what my position is, because you refuse to even try to understand. You can continue making asinine remarks, but that really doesn't get you far. It just makes you look foolish.

 

[jelly]

You have no idea what my position is, because you refuse to even try to understand. You can continue making asinine remarks, but that really doesn't get you far. It just makes you look foolish.

so you think that there is a historical AND biblical jesus because you have a perspective of jesus?