Amen-Moses

Don't bust a gut trying to find it either, I have been conversing with this guy for the best part of two years and have yet to see any!

Why I wonder did Josephus cover in detail all the other sects, even the Essene who where a tiny group (around 2000 members if I recall Philo correctly) and yet completely ignores christians (who by the time he was writing had supposedly spread to almost every corner of the empire?) was it maybe because he thought of them as a sub-cult part of one of the major sects? (i.e the Pharisees?)

Surely he could not have spent his entire life from 37 CE till the uprising in 64 CE in and around Jerusalem and Galilee and never met any of the early evangelists?

Amen-Moses

Radorth

I'm sure, now that I've come to disagree with you. Besides, a skeptic has all but claimed he has a point but his leaps of logic and use of hyperbole are not worthy of the adjective "scholarly." Like I say, I go by what skeptics say themselves. I need look no further for convincing evidence, and Doherty's reputation has self-imolated IMO. I feel a bit of a fool for taking him seriously before reading much.

Interesting you should cast aside Wells by calling him a sci-fi writer, while defending Doherty's right to pontificate. He would get a PhD if anybody encouraged him to do so, and I marvel that you would even use a source who does not have one. I just assumed he did. But it's becoming more obvious why you can't find one.

Radorth

Radorth

Anybody notice a corn-cob yet? Of course we are talking about a guy with such esoteric knowledge, he doesn't know who James Madison is. Right AM?

I guess somebody found some logic in my posts, or such a genius as AM would not bother answering hundreds of them.

Radorth

lpetrich

One thing interesting about the Jesus-myth hypothesis is the strong emotions that it provokes ("Of course Jesus Christ existed!!!!!"). I've seen that in Radorth, Layman, Nomad, Bede, and others.

One wonders why that might be.

Toto

You say "a skeptic has all but claimed he has a point but his leaps of logic" etc. This is a very dishonest characterization of Carrier's review. Carrier said that Doherty's work did not meet the technical qualifications of academic work, but that its deviations were fairly technical, minor, and fixable in a subsequent edition.

Doherty was not writing an academic treatise, so it is not suprizing that he failed to meet the technical standards of one.

I never said Wells didn't have a right to pontificate. I just disputed using him a major authority, the last word on what atheist scholars thought about the historical Jesus.

I don't think you know much about PhD's if you think that everyone wants one and would get one if they could.

MortalWombat

Given that Amen-Moses is from the UK, I would tend to forgive him for his lack of knowledge of US history.

Plebe

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml</a>
FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY
"Being crafty, I caught you with guile... For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I adjudged a sinner?"...St. Paul.
"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" Pope Leo X

The ahistorical case has a preponderance of evidence, including the above statements of admission on record by the very "Church Fathers" who were instrumental in the creation of the sect of Christianity that Canonized the New Testament which we have today-despite the "Reformation" all of the sects of the Reformation have this New Testament and Old Testament with only a small number of books considered apocryphal and eliminated from them. What we have with those who dispute the evidence are believers who would rarely acquiesce to reasonable doubt and agnosticism on the matter. Itpetrich has brought out a valid point,that believers bring their emotions to a discussion that requires an appreciation and acknowledgement of the evidence available from a rational vs. emotional viewpoint that would cloud the ability to reach a logical conclusion.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Take no notice, I admitted to pulling his chain over that one, of course I knew who Madison was but I hadn't particularly studied him in depth beyond his church/state stance until radorth claimed him as a christian brethren. Then I did go read everything the man had written (that I could find on the web at an extremely credible source, i.e the University named after him!) and could find absolutely no support for him being a christian. Radorths reply? Well he just ridiculed the source of course!

Typical fundy moron tactics, JohnV would be proud of him.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Couldn't be close mindedness I suppose?

Amen-Moses

Radorth

Never claimed any such thing. In fact I included him amongst the 3-4 deists for the sake of argument (which I won). That corn-cob is affecting your memory A-M.

Highlights

The argument began with one "open minded" fundy atheist claiming "They were all deists."

As the argument progressed, one "open minded" skeptic asserted "they were mostly deists."

Then another "open minded" skeptic said "they were mostly closet deists."

Then a really "open minded" one finally admitted "Well I never denied many were Christians."

Nothing gives me more joy than to see them walk in the truth. This particular revelation took about 2 weeks though.

Radorth

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>