Adam

As always, I'm talking about probabilities. Decades later one would forget the details and remember the astounding. The Johannine source looks like "My Week with Jesus", not something written to entertain. It is strong evidence against MJ.

Toto

You've got nothing. You've got your subjective feeling that there's an eyewitness in there somewhere.

Adam

That reminds me of my lead statement in my
OP to Gospel Eyewitnesses
Ironically, the "no evidence" part I inserted in regards to Doug Shaver, whose mantra that was. Doug was the one who told me that FRDB was the best Atheist website, where I would get a hostile but fair reception. Now even he no longer thinks it is fair (my Post #47).

sotto voce

steve_bnk

HJ has been debated ad nauseum between us non believers exclusive of any theists. Yiou are going to have bring somethng new. Look through the threads.

There is no contemporary coorboration. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. One of the tradtional theist retorts, you guys are afraid/unwilling/just wont listen to the obvious truth.

As to hostility,we are serene compared to some of the theist attacks from devotees of the Prince of Peace.

1.JC was real
2. Where's the proof?
3. It is in the bible
4. Why is it true?
5. Because god says so
6. How do you know god exists?
7. Because he is in the bible
8. Got any objective cooboration?
5. Why are you people hostile?



Personally I believe there may have been a specfic character on which the story grew, or JC may have been a composite character. However it is only an opinion.

No we can not discount something a priori. However 2000 years after an alleged fact it is the theist who must provide objective proof. There are multiple accounts and images of Ceasar, Cleopatra, Henry 8, George Washinton, etc. None for JC.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge my response to your question on using the gospels to figure out what may have happened? What are you afraid of, a secular explantion of the story? It cuts both ways. We have no faith, only resoned decisions on theism.

The onus is on you to provide proof. Theists come here not to discuss, but to prove us all wrong and show us the errors of our ways.

Present a reasoned argument.

State a clear hypothesis followed by a series of supporting arguments and data subject to critique and you may get a better response.

Adam

Your Post #8 seemed like a statement, not a response to the OP that called for an answer. Same for your #55 here. My OP listed various posts of mine that were being ignored, as they still are.

steve_bnk

OP

'...Would accepting it as historical imply historicity to whatever gospel stories might explain how and why Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death? Would other dominoes subsequently fall?..'

Well, maybe this is why you get no response.
Yiu are declaring and not discsuung.

you asked if the story explains what haooened would the domenioes fall? Lets discuss that, or not. The dominoes quio was a generalized personal attack on us all.

There arae some people here who are very knowledgeable in Christian history and all the siources. The depth around here tends to be better than the majority of theists who post here. I am not one of them, my posts don't always get a responce. I don't loose sleep over it. I have no interest in making the effort to be able to run with some of the discussions which become detailed and academic.

Like I said, if you wnat to engage you have to bring something new. The New Testament and JC historical vs myth vs divine has been picked clean to the bone around here. I think the discussions among the relgiion regulars have shifted to other topics

This is a dead and thread.

James_M

I would agree that all thr western protestant denominations trace back to Roman Christianity. More specifically, that they broke away from it about a milleniia after its formation.(and used it's bible as a starting point for their own)

But, there were the Ebionites and a few others, I think that perhaps the Coptic Christians and Ethiopian Christians evolved independently of the Roman Catholic. These I believe even have their own early version (meaning pre-1000CE of the biblical canon).

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy in action !

Tom Sawyer

I don't think that documentation showing that Jesus was a real person would cause any dominos related to Christianity as a theology to fall as a result of that anymore that documentation showing that Joesph Smith was a real person would cause dominos related to Mormon theology to fall as a result.

If it's a fact that the Romans went and executed some guy, all the supernatural stuff associated with him being a deity would still be just as fictional, the same way that the actual existence of a cult leader in the 19th century doesn't lead to it being the case that he had an angel give him some golden tablets.

steve_bnk

I think he meant atheism as the falling dominoes.