To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK, Quagmire. So far as I can tell, you aren't reading my messages. Let me know if you'd like to pick it up later.

You really haven't been reading any of the posts you've been responding to, have you.

Actually, I've read every message to me, very closely. How else could I so easily turn aside the feeble arguments of the Jesus-realers?

 

[Quagmire]

OK, Quagmire. So far as I can tell, you aren't reading my messages. Let me know if you'd like to pick it up later.



Actually, I've read every message to me, very closely. How else could I so easily turn aside the feeble arguments of the Jesus-realers?

Apparently you haven't been reading your own posts either.

 

[Quagmire]

Hitting a couple of high points:



I really don't know what you're talking about.

I realize that. :yes:

I guess you assume that we have a complete record of most everything which happened in first-century Judea?

One more baseless guess on your part.

That's my best guess as to what you're arguing.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm trying to show you the flaws in your arguments.

If I'm right, I disagree.

and if you're wrong, you'll still disagree.

My understanding is that the Jews of that time never mentioned either the historical Jesus or the proto-Jesus.

Paul was actually a Jew of that time. Whether you think he was talkng about a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus, I think we can agree he did in fact mention a Jesus.

You seem to have a lot more confidence about what we can know about ancient history than I do.

Realizing that we can never know most things for a certainty is no excuse for making things up.

I think it could easily take 50 years for a sect to formally break away.

Why do you think that?

I think it could have been a vague theological hodgepodge until some stiff-lipped Jewish leader finally got fed up and made the messiah-claimants go down and register the name 'Christian' and stop worshipping with them in the temple.

And why do you think this?

You keep telling us what you "think" without demonstrating that there was any thing like actual thinking involved.

Really? So you think that the Beowulf stories were not told to amuse people? If not, why not? Why were they told?

Eh, kind of assumed you knew this but Beowulf is not part of first century Jewish folklore.

Maybe we haven't found all the newspapers and magazines yet. Seriously, I wouldn't expect any such reports. There are no reports of a physical Jesus. Why would there be reports of proto-Jesus stories?

Already explained that.

It's interesting. As I was writing 'around the campfire' I stopped and thought to myself, "Well, let's see how Quagmire deals with my metaphorical language. Is he the sort of person with whom I must write with extreme precision, or is he a guy who is laid-back and will accept my shorthand talk?"

"or is he the kind of guy who will let me get away with expressing things in such vague terms that later on when it's been shown that I'm talking nonsense I can just claim that I meant something else?"

I'm pretty clear on the nature of first-century Jerusalem. Not an expert, but not ignorant.

One more thing you expect us to take your word for without providing any evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

Actually, it is inline with some modern scholarship; i.e Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and a few others who are looking at this issue in this way. Also, look at Prof. Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities to give you an idea of how early Christianity looked. It is interesting stuff!

But I agree with you as far as not beleiving it all, for the subject matter itself, 'Jesus Christ' could possibly be fictitious so what is the point about believing this or that about a possibly fictitional person_? It is a litte like getting into a heated argument about Dr Spok's powers and their origins.

So you're saying "Jesus Christ may be a completely fictitious character, so lets just assume he is and talk about something else"?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not arguing anything, I'm trying to show you the flaws in your arguments.

Well, to have any chance of that, you'd have to actually make cogent arguments and offer real evidence. Don't you realize that?

and if you're wrong, you'll still disagree.

Insults are easy. Debate is hard.

You keep telling us what you "think" without demonstrating that there was any thing like actual thinking involved.

Ditto.

Eh, kind of assumed you knew this but Beowulf is not part of first century Jewish folklore.

This is the sort of response I've now come to expect from you.

Thanks for trying, but I'd really rather debate the historical Jesus with someone.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, to have any chance of that, you'd have to actually make cogent arguments and offer real evidence. Don't you realize that?

That's simply ridiculous. If you make the claim "I believe the character of Jesus in the bible is based on a proto-Jesus who lived prior to blah blah blah..."

why would you need to know what I think in order to explain your position?

The only reason you keep asking me to present my position is so you could use it to change the subject and take the focus off the fact that you have no basis for your own position.

Insults are easy. Debate is hard.

Oh goody. Now that I've called you on something you can't dance around you're going to pull the "Quagmire is being mean to me" bit again.

Ditto.

That's just an outright lie. Like I keep pointing out: I haven't presented a position, I've been pointing out the flaws in your position. And accurately.

Once more, you can't refute it, so you're going to somehow label it an ad hominum and try and pull the poor victim bit.

This is the sort of response I've now come to expect from you.

An accurate one? Thanks. Wish I could say the same for you.

Thanks for trying, but I'd really rather debate the historical Jesus with someone.

If that were true you would have attempted to do so by now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You don't seem to even be following my statements anymore, Quagmire, and I have no interest in listening as you accuse me of lying.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... and all that.

Actually, that is a fallacious and thoughtless statement, but pretty much in keeping with your historiagraphy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, that is a fallacious and thoughtless statement, but pretty much in keeping with your historiagraphy.

If you'd ever like to discuss the (non)historical Jesus, Jay, I'll be happy to engage you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Once more, you can't refute it, so you're going to somehow label it an ad hominum and try and pull the poor victim bit.

You might want to research the meaning of 'ad hominem'.

It's what I've been trying to get you to stop for several messages now.

If you want to talk about the (non)historical Jesus, let's talk about the (non)historical Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you'd ever like to discuss the (non)historical Jesus, Jay, I'll be happy to engage you.

You mean by throwing around half-witticisms such as ...

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... and all that.

Oh, my! :biglaugh:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You mean by throwing around half-witticisms such as ...Oh, my! :biglaugh:

Would you like to discuss the (non)historical Jesus with me?

It's hard to believe that some people still believe such a person actually lived in first-century Judea.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Would you like to discuss the (non)historical Jesus with me?

It's hard to believe that some people still believe such a person actually lived in first-century Judea.

Hard to believe? Given the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact live in 1st century Galilee. What's hard to believe is your imaginary friend proto-Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hard to believe? Given the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact live in 1st century Galilee. What's hard to believe is your imaginary friend proto-Jesus.

The historical Jesus is imaginary. That's clear based on all the evidence and on good rational processing of that evidence.

I'll be happy to go over it again with you.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The historical Jesus is imaginary. That's clear based on all the evidence and on good rational processing of that evidence.

I'll be happy to go over it again with you.

Oh please do. State your case again please. Just for us who are slow.

 

[Quagmire]

You might want to research the meaning of 'ad hominem'.

Apparently your definition is "any statement that draws attention to the fact that I have no idea at all what I'm talking about".

It's what I've been trying to get you to stop for several messages now.

Ah, so that actually is your definition.

If you want to talk about the (non)historical Jesus, let's talk about the (non)historical Jesus.

You: "I beleive in the non-historical Jesus"

Me: "Ah. Could you explain why?"

You: "Why don't you explain why?"

Me: "Because it's your position".

You: "No it isn't".

Me: "So you don't believe in a non-historical Jesus?"

You: "Yes I do".

Me: "OK, can you explain why?"

You: "I already did".

Me: "What? No you didn't."

You: "Neither did you."

Me: "Why should I? It's not my position, it's your position".

You: "No it isn't."

Me: "(wow)".

You:" And anyway, what about Beowulf?"

Me: "What are you even talking about now?"

You: "I have no idea what either of us is talking about now but I'm pretty sure yours is an ad hominem".

Me: "What is?"

You: "That is".

Me: "What is?"

You: "And that."

Me: "How is any of that an ad hominem"

You: "Just is"

Me: "How?"

You: "Enough of your insults! Let me know if you want to talk about the non-historical Jesus".

 

[fallingblood]

The historical Jesus is imaginary. That's clear based on all the evidence and on good rational processing of that evidence.

I'll be happy to go over it again with you.

You mean ignore the evidence and then add wishful thinking? Please don't.

I mean seriously, you stated that all god-men were crucified. When asked to support such a claim, you have been unable to actually produce such an individual.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh please do. State your case again please. Just for us who are slow.

Since I've posted it twice very directly, and answered all questions about it, I'm thinking there is no one in this universe who could possibly be so slow as to not understand it by now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Apparently your definition is "any statement that draws attention to the fact that I have no idea at all what I'm talking about".

Although it is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about, I would normally try to avoid focusing on that fact. I prefer to focus on the issue itself.

'Ad hominem' means 'to the man'. I ask you again to try and bring yourself back "to the issue".

Your little story is kinda cute, I guess. I'm not sure why you are posting fiction to the board. I'd hoped you might want to discuss the historical Jesus with me.

Why are you here in this thread if you have no interest in discussing the historical Jesus?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Since I've posted it twice very directly, and answered all questions about it, I'm thinking there is no one in this universe who could possibly be so slow as to not understand it by now.

I must have missed it. Please give me a synopsis.