Chris Weimer

You keep repeating this mantra of "intellectual honesty" - I guess every historian is a liar then, right?

Wrong! You still don't get it - you still have no fucking clue. Am I talking to a brick wall?

You have yet to show how they're derivative. All you have is merely two similar ideas with no connection.

The University of Memphis is a Christian school? Whoah, I wonder how I missed that!

You are employing double standards, and at the same time calling me dishonest. And you expect me to apologize? You're a joke.

Dismissing all the evidence without good reason is also dishonest. Pot, meet kettle.

Critical scholarship? Looking at two similar traits and calling it a dependence is not critical scholarship. In any other field, it's called stupidity. Hey, the Aztec pyramids came about in 1500 CE, but the Babylonians came about in 2000 BCE! The Aztecs must have seen the Babylonian pyramids!

I've dedicated years of scholarship at this forum and abroad. It's not my fault you refuse to heed any of it.

Fuck the church. What does it have to do with now? I am not the church. If you got problems with Catholics, take it elsewhere.

Are you really that dense? I just fucking mentioned it - obviously I am aware of it!

Oh please, Mr. Zoologist, tell me about the literary parallels between Euripides' Bacchae and Galatians! Can't you please?

You wouldn't know scholarship if it punched you in the face. HELLO-O! ANYONE HOME! I've been asking what do you want - a fucking birth certificate?! WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT!!!

Great! So you can accurately describe yourself.

Put the mythology books down and get some critical scholarship done on Roman, Greek, and Jewish culture, politics, and language.

That's clearly wrong. There's plenty of archaeological evidence - we have manuscripts dating to the second century! But he refuses to accept them. We have inscriptions dating to the first century. But he refuses to accept them. That's plain obstinance.

What do you expect talking to a tour guide?

You jest.

No, what I object to is the constant dismissal of evidence and employment of a double standard that is contrary to reason.

So because my conclusions have led me to see think that there was an historical Jesus, I'm not an atheist anymore? You've reached a new low.

Call all the bullshit you want. I call your house a penguin, but that doesn't make it one.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that studying animals is directly related to Biblical research. After all, didn't Jesus sit upon an ass?



You ever heard of the Talmud Jmmanuel? The main proponent today, Jim Deardorff, whom I have debated with at length, is a research professor emeritus at Oregan State University. His field is meteorology. So do we accept his statements on aliens giving out the original gospel called TJ and that the Biblical gospels are derived from it? Of course not! Do you know why? He's in no way qualified to give such an answer. He doesn't know Aramaic, and he hasn't a clue about historical research.

And neither do you. You haven't got the foggiest. Yeah, you got a doctorate in zoology- go study animals. When you learn the relevant languages, or at least learn something about them, when you learn what is acceptable and what is not in historical studies, then you can start talking.

What you're doing is just what the YECs do in the field of biology. I'm sure, as a zoologist, you must have had YECs tell you that all animals were created by God - the evidence is there! In fact, AiG does the same thing. Their founder, Dr. Monty, claims to be an expert with relevant degrees, but it's in chemistry and kinetics. I think Discovery Institute also employs a "doctor" expert - a dental surgeon! Obviously, these are "experts", right?

Wrong. Have all the PhDs you want in zoology, but you still know jack shit when it comes to history.

This is pathetic. If they don't agree with you, they're not atheist... Hrm...I don't believe I've ever heard this argument coming from Christians before...isn't there a name for this fallacy...no true...scotsman? Yeah, something like that.

You're not even worth debating anymore.

knotted paragon

Thanks for the response Chris,
If their genre is ultimately different, isn't it also a double standard to assume Jesus in the same manner as the Egyptian?
I’d like to expand this thought, but first, how do you distinguish between the two conceptual entities: Historical Jesus, and literary Jesus?

Also, I meant in terms of the number of candidates. When would you make that distinction? If the amalgam could be traced to two, three, four different sources?

thanks again,

...brian...

Chris Weimer

I don't, and no one seriously does. But what many ask is for evidence that would also disqualify the Egyptian.

The latter was based on the former and contains embellishment unknown prior.

It depends on exactly how little they have. Say we have identified two different candidates very likely to have been the original Jesus. One was an apocalyptic revolutionary who wanted Romans out of Israel, and the other was named Brian, was confused for this revolutionary, and was crucified for it. I'd think the best explanation is that the historical Jesus was the apocalyptic revolutionary and he was confused with another non-Jesus who was crucified. So the historical Jesus contains no crucifixion.

However, if the former's name was Brian and the latter Jesus, then I'd probably argue for a complete reversal - a man named Jesus was the historical Jesus, and all of his teachings were actually stolen directly from his contemporary Brian.

best regards,

Chris Weimer

PS - I noticed I used your name - that was coincidental. I namely had Life of Brian in mind when writing the above.

jjramsey

I am pointing out what you claimed, not what you thought, and what you claimed was this:

Let's see, now. You are claiming that Chris Weimer was "playing the Christian" and brought up "some other ancient figure with piss poor scholarship behind them [sic] too." This "other ancient figure" was the Egyptian. So, based on what you wrote, you accused Chris Weimer of bringing up the Egyptian "with piss poor scholarship behind them [sic]." You cannot at the same time coherently claim that Chris Weimer brought up the Egyptian "with piss poor scholarship behind them [sic]" and also that you made no claim about the scholarship behind the Egyptian. There is nothing "egotistical" about pointing out what your words meant.

S.C.Carlson

Also Acts 21:28, if it is the same Egyptian.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

If your Ph.D. isn't good enough to let you figure out that Chris is not a Christian, you should stop bragging about it.

Stephen

Biff the unclean

As a zoologist things that look like ducks, walk like ducks and quack like ducks tend to lead me to certain conclusions.:huh:

Chris Weimer

That was the exception. It probably is the same Egyptian, given Acts' use of Josephus, but then again, some here automatically disqualify the Bible.

S.C.Carlson

It was a brilliant test to see how well he knows the primacy sources. If he was familiar with them, he should have hit your pitch out of the park. Instead, it was a swing and a miss.

Stephen

Chris Weimer

Actually, I think I picked it up here the last time this thing happened. I can't take the credit for inventing it.

Chris