To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[AmbiguousGuy]

You have tossed aside all the actual evidence, all logic, and basically anything that is rational, to follow an idea that simply is based on ignorant, and delusion.

Most of your message is of this tone, Blood.

If you want to discuss the historical Jesus with me on the basis of good evidence and rational argumentation, I will try to accomodate you if I have the time.

But I guess if you want to shut your eyes and start running around in the dark, that's your choice. Just don't expect anyone to accept an idea with no logical support to it.

Actually, I guess all of your message is of this tone.

Would you show this thread to one of your professors? Or to your mother?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Most of your message is of this tone, Blood.

If you want to discuss the historical Jesus with me on the basis of good evidence and rational argumentation, I will try to accomodate you if I have the time.



Actually, I guess all of your message is of this tone.

Would you show this thread to one of your professors? Or to your mother?

He has presented sound evidence over and over again. Please present a sound refutation of that evidence. Or give us a plausible explanation about the origins of Christianity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want to discuss the historical Jesus with me on the basis of good evidence and rational argumentation, I will try to accomodate you if I have the time.

I've seen no evidence from you of an interest in or capacity for rational argumentation. Rather, you tell us that because a man who never claimed to meet Jesus in the flesh and who wrote years after the purported crucifixion didn't talk about Jesus the man, Jesus the man is obviously a Pauline fabrication. That is simply absurd.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Paul never abandoned Judaism, he was always a Jew. What he abandoned was the idea that the gentiles have to adhere to Mosaic Law in order to be pleasing to God. Like a good Jew he knew that Judaism is for the Jews and that God offered a new covenant in the spirit of the law matters more than the letter. And that the gentiles can follow the spirit without following the letter.

How can a good Jew write something like this?

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:1-11 ESV)

Now this is an undisputed Pauline text - that is, there is no substantial challenge to the argument that Paul wrote this text in his epistle to the Philippians.

I wonder - when was the last time you read Paul?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How can a good Jew write something like this?



Now this is an undisputed Pauline text - that is, there is no substantial challenge to the argument that Paul wrote this text in his epistle to the Philippians.

I wonder - when was the last time you read Paul?

This is for another thread which I will proudly start sooner or later.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He has presented sound evidence over and over again. Please present a sound refutation of that evidence. Or give us a plausible explanation about the origins of Christianity.

Been there and done it. Time to move on unless anyone who believes in the historical Jesus can provide any evidence or arugment for their position.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've seen no evidence from you of an interest in or capacity for rational argumentation. Rather, you tell us that because a man who never claimed to meet Jesus in the flesh and who wrote years after the purported crucifixion didn't talk about Jesus the man, Jesus the man is obviously a Pauline fabrication. That is simply absurd.

 

[fallingblood]

Most of your message is of this tone, Blood.

If you want to discuss the historical Jesus with me on the basis of good evidence and rational argumentation, I will try to accomodate you if I have the time.



Actually, I guess all of your message is of this tone.

Would you show this thread to one of your professors? Or to your mother?

Yes I would. You have tossed aside all logic to follow a preconceived idea that is based on delusion and ignorance. Now, when I say ignorance, I mean lack of knowledge. It is not an insult (I'm ignorant in my fields). However, one can not base a defense on it, and that is what you have done (and really, you have pretty much admitted as much).

You are a perfect example of someone who wants to believe an irrational, and ill informed idea, simply because of a want. And really, it is fine if you hold such an idea. However, you will not convince anyone.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now this is an undisputed Pauline text - that is, there is no substantial challenge to the argument that Paul wrote this text in his epistle to the Philippians.

So what do you think about the historical Jesus, Angellous? Do you think he was crucified in 33 CE? I just can't help thinking that Paul would not talk about a real contemporary this way.

Let me say again, for the record, that I do not believe that a mythical Jesus would take Christianty down any more than a mythical Creation Story did. I think theological thought can be based on the Bible yet change radically as a person reaches various conclusions about reality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes I would. You have tossed aside all logic to follow a preconceived idea that is based on delusion and ignorance.

OK, Blood. I'm a deluded and ignorant guy. That's probably the best explanation.

 

[fallingblood]

OK, Blood. I'm a deluded and ignorant guy. That's probably the best explanation.

No. I have no idea if you're deluded or ignorant in general. What I'm saying is that you are ignorant on this topic. You are ignorant in one specific subject, early Christianity. That ignorance, on this particular subject, has led to a delusional idea. Whether or not this carries over into other parts of your life, I can't really say. I wouldn't assume so though.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No. I have no idea if you're deluded or ignorant in general. What I'm saying is that you are ignorant on this topic. You are ignorant in one specific subject, early Christianity. That ignorance, on this particular subject, has led to a delusional idea. Whether or not this carries over into other parts of your life, I can't really say. I wouldn't assume so though.

OK, Blood. And for the record, I consider you to be ignorant and deluded on this topic.

And so it goes.

 

[fallingblood]

OK, Blood. And for the record, I consider you to be ignorant and deluded on this topic.

And so it goes.

That's all fine and dandy, but why not back it up. Show us your evidence for your theory. Show us these other crucified godmen. Show us any support at all.

 

[Quagmire]

Yikes. You have me confused with a guy who cares about first-century trivia.

If you aren't interested in this topic (and especially if you aren't interested enough to actually do any research in order to understand it, or even pay any attention to what anyone who has has to say about it) why are you even participating in a discussion about it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's all fine and dandy, but why not back it up. Show us your evidence for your theory. Show us these other crucified godmen. Show us any support at all.

If you have any evidence for your own theory, you are welcome to show it.

Show any support at all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you aren't interested in this topic (and especially if you aren't interested enough to actually do any research in order to understand it, or even pay any attention to what anyone who has has to say about it) why are you even participating in a discussion about it?

I'm not participating in a discussion about it. I'm here to discuss the historical Jesus.

I'm not sure why Jay wants to talk in detail about the first-century church at Jerusalem, but as I've told him, I don't know much about it and can't see any real relevance. If he can somehow tie it into the historical Jesus, though, I'll be glad to examine that connection.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not participating in a discussion about it. I'm here to discuss the historical Jesus.

And he's supposed to have existed when?

I'm not sure why Jay wants to talk in detail about the first-century church at Jerusalem, but as I've told him, I don't know much about it and can't see any real relevance. If he can somehow tie it into the historical Jesus, though, I'll be glad to examine that connection.

Well, I think it's fairly safe to say that if there was an historical Jesus living in first century Jerusalem, it wouldn't be too much of a leap to assume that there was probably some tie between him and a first-century Christian church in Jerusalem.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Show any support at all.

 

[fallingblood]

If you have any evidence for your own theory, you are welcome to show it.

Show any support at all.

You presented an idea. You have a burden to show evidence for it.

I have shown the evidence for my theory. I directed you to my thread that I posted. More so, Josephus is enough to show that Jesus lived in the first century.

You have presented nothing. The little bit of information you supplied, I have already offered a rebuttal.

So again, Paul speaks of a historical Jesus who still has a brother living. We know it is a recent figure. Josephus also speaks of this same Jesus. Both place Jesus in the first century.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have presented nothing.

But I satisfied his demand for poof.