Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 10-11-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Historical Jesus fits quite well the current collective evidence and in a very parsimonious manner.

Gee. How many times have we seen this assertion before? You should know what we think of it.

You don't have any 'Historical Jesus'.
You cannot point to one single line within any text and say; 'THIS IS the real Jesus, and proves beyond any doubt that Jesus was historical.

jakejonesiv · 10-11-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Historical Jesus fits quite well the current collective evidence and in a very parsimonious manner.

All bluster.:hobbyhorse:

J-D · 10-11-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Personally, Jake, I'm just confused about what significance we should attach to the 'Chrestos/Christos' thing', in Tacitus, and/or elsewhere, vis-a-vis MJ/HJ.

Or more properly, I'm actually wondering why mountainman brought it up. Do you know?

This is incredible. An AGNOSTIC who admits nothing is certain is arguing for HJ of Nazareth.

Can't you see your FOLLY? Your are wasting your time. You're Agnostic.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

You cannot resolve the HJ/MJ argument.

You cannot show whether or NOT there was an HJ of Nazareth.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything to thread.

In the NT, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and no supposed contemporaries, the authors of Acts and Pauline writings, ever claimed Jesus had a human father.

Paul was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED to SEE Jesus in a non-historical state and BOASTED that OVER 500 people saw the RESURRECTED MYTH. See 1 Cor.15.

You MUST KNOW what that means.

It MUST mean that Paul was extremely happy with MYTH Jesus.

Can't you see your FOLLY? You are wasting your time.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything.

J-D · 10-11-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the NT, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and no supposed contemporaries, the authors of Acts and Pauline writings, ever claimed Jesus had a human father.

The New Testament contains some statements which are not historically true: that does not settle the question of how much of its contents are historically true; it leaves that question open.

aa5874 · 10-11-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Personally, Jake, I'm just confused about what significance we should attach to the 'Chrestos/Christos' thing', in Tacitus, and/or elsewhere, vis-a-vis MJ/HJ.

Or more properly, I'm actually wondering why mountainman brought it up. Do you know?

This is incredible. An AGNOSTIC who admits nothing is certain is arguing for HJ of Nazareth.

Can't you see your FOLLY? Your are wasting your time. You're Agnostic.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

You cannot resolve the HJ/MJ argument.

You cannot show whether or NOT there was an HJ of Nazareth.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything to thread.

In the NT, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and no supposed contemporaries, the authors of Acts and Pauline writings, ever claimed Jesus had a human father.

Paul was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED to SEE Jesus in a non-historical state and BOASTED that OVER 500 people saw the RESURRECTED MYTH. See 1 Cor.15.

You MUST KNOW what that means.

It MUST mean that Paul was extremely happy with MYTH Jesus.

Can't you see your FOLLY? You are wasting your time.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything.

You are plagerising my work. Stop it. You are violating the rules.

MCalavera · 10-11-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Historical Jesus fits quite well the current collective evidence and in a very parsimonious manner.

Gee. How many times have we seen this assertion before? You should know what we think of it.

You don't have any 'Historical Jesus'.
You cannot point to one single line within any text and say; 'THIS IS the real Jesus, and proves beyond any doubt that Jesus was historical.

As long as you agree my conclusion is accurate (even if you don't accept it as valid), then I'm happy.

MCalavera · 10-11-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can't you see your FOLLY? You are wasting your time.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything.

You are plagerising my work. Stop it. You are violating the rules.

What plagiarism? What work? What rules?

archibald · 10-11-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The New Testament contains some statements which are not historically true: that does not settle the question of how much of its contents are historically true; it leaves that question open.

:thumbs:

Indeed. Wize words.

Furthermore, thank goodness!

Or else we would have to stop having such fun and do something less rewarding. :]

archibald · 10-11-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Historical Jesus fits quite well the current collective evidence and in a very parsimonious manner.

All bluster.:hobbyhorse:

I think he's right, in principle. But I would amend 'very' to 'more'. How much more? Don't ask for a specific figure, please. I am, don't you know a -10 on the nutshell scale, but may drift up to the positive side occasionally. :]

The scale you thought you could improve on. Hah.

Kidding. Your preference is at least as useful, except perhaps it may not satisfy an ardent mythicist, and with so many here, I did not want to be controversial or disrespectful. Dare I say, 'when in Rome......' Or not, as the case may be. :]

Interesting you would give paul a 2 and Jesus a 3.

Usually, just having (apparently) texts written by a named author is taken as a positive. And when said works are referenced (in Mark?) and later the author is cited by name.......

Just a minor thought. No big deal.

archibald · 10-11-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I don't think MM brings up anything other than to promote the idea that Constaintine invented Christianity. But Pete can speak eloquently for himself.

My standpoint is to doubt that particular hypothesis, but assume that mm is also capable of making good points in other areas. :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Perhaps Christianity is a syncrestic religion, the combination of sects, some of which worshiped Christos, some of who worshipped Chrestos. Who knows?

Nobody. Though for myself, I would need something more before preferring to think that there was a Jewish sect of Christians plus a Jewish sect of Chrestians operating in relative temporal and geographic proximity. And, until I read something persuasive, I'm going to think that perhaps such proximity included being in Rome around a similar time.

This is a provisional position, you understand. :]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.