John W. Loftus

Hi Spin, I remember you, and no, I don't want to revisit the issue of whether there was a man who started the Jesus cult who was a Jewish apocalyptic doomsday prophet in line with a succession of them and in line with millenarian doomsday prophets who have failed in every generation.

But I concede nothing and don't have to because this is what I really think. It's just that it's good I think this way, because then I have more credibility in the eyes of Christians than people like you do. I think you should embrace this about me, okay? Who has the best chance of reaching them?

As far as siding with Holding goes, well, no one who reads this debate will think this, since it's crystal clear my portrait of Jesus would destroy his view of Jesus (I'm below him on the left):

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

But I can agree with people I think are right and I can disagree with people I think are wrong irrespective of party line, and I do. For me there is no party line. I am first and foremost a freethinker, like my friend Bob Price, even if we may come to different conclusions. He lets me come to mine and I let him come to his.

By the way, I'm compiling a new book already approved by Prometheus Books with scholars like Drs. Jim Linville, David Eller, Hector Avalos, Bob Price, Valerie Tarico, Richard Carrier, and others. In it I have a chapter titled: "At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet," which I think my argument can, if successful, devastate the Christian faith. Granting that the New Testament is somewhat reliable I force Christians to choose their poison: either Jesus was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet who failed because the eschaton did not take place in his generation, or the New Testament isn't even somewhat reliable. I think you'll like it when the book comes out (who knows when?).

spin

I'm flattered, John.

For a statement of no desire, you have certainly overqualified it, John. It was the Pharisees who said, "build a hedge around the law".

I have seen the way you think, John.

If you have credibility, it's probably the ex-junkie appeal.

The man who wants to save the world.

What's the difference between being christian and not being christian? There's only one word. It's still about being christian.

That's on the same side of the issue as Holding.

It's not a matter of what you think, John. It's a matter of being rational. Your thought has already betrayed you once. (Remember?) You need a higher standard, based solely on evidence. But you've shown across internet that evidence is just not that important for you.

That's not how you appear here. My guess is that you are a reactionary.

If you've ever read the Maltese Falcon, you'd know about a fellow called Flitcraft, who had a world-shaking near-death experience. It was so devastating that he dropped everything that he was doing, left his job, wife, kids, house, everything and disappeared. His insurance took care of his family. Some years later he turned up in another town, married once again with kids and a steady job.

I'm pleased you have friends, John.

What's interesting is how.

Once again, I'm pleased for you, John.


spin

John W. Loftus

Don't be.

You stand for the party line. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line is, well, ______ (Fill in the blank). You dismiss me because I think there was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult and that's all you care about; your little tiny pet pee(ve)nis. Good luck with that. You're not even worth my debating. As far as I can see that's the one topic here people seem to be most interested in, and I think this reveals a kind of myopic thinking, people talking to themselves about what interests them and not really trying to address the concerns of others (at least that's my perfunctorily impression).

I'm out of here too. I left crowd thinking when I left the church.

You're a "Bright," eh? Well I'm not. I guess I know my place.

John W. Loftus

One last thing, I know this board has had its problems. People have told me about them. It reminds me of churches I was a minister of. As the minister my job was to help them grow. But there were people in them in every church who would send newcomers out the back door as quick as I could get them in the front. At some point in order to grow the members who sent others away had to go. But there was no way I could do that with those existing church members, and I dare not try. I tried to teach them, but I had to work with what I had. I have seen things here that send people away too, Spin for instance. I would give him the boot just because of his arrogance and fundamentalist type of thinking where he's right and everyone else is not just wrong, but stupid. Sound familiar? Think Holding.

Now I'm gone.

spin

Anyone who has been on this forum long enough would know that that statement is the sort of thing that I do dismiss. It's not based on evidence. They'd know I don't dismiss John W. because of what he thinks in this instance, but because he has nothing tangible to back it up. He doesn't seem to know his scholarly responsibilities.





Perfunctory!

:wave:

John W. might have left the church, but he hasn't left it behind.

You've always known your place, John.


spin

spin

Perhaps John W. should take a poll here. Open a new thread asking people to see if they think I am arrogant and think like a fundamentalist. Give forum members the question and see how the clicks fall.

John W. doesn't like it when people disagree with him. Radical skepticism can easily lead to disagreement. It's about how and why, not what. I don't mind at all -- really -- that John W. thinks that there was a historical Jesus. (And he may even be right, though he wouldn't know.) I have trouble when he cannot answer me from the available evidence why he thinks that. But John W. is still about what.

Holding is also a what man.

The butterfly flits and doesn't stay anywhere very long. Nature calls.


spin