Solitary Man

Surely you are aware of purposeful misspellings! It's a play on "Goddidit". A far cry from rediculous (which is ridiculous).

Quite a pleasure indeed. I hope that we can dissuade you of the silly notion of "Jesus Mythicism" if your real intentions is to dissuade fundies of their "silly notions", such as "Goddidit" or "Satandidit".

Solitary Man

If by Jesus you mean a certain Yeshua, born of a human father and mother, the latter whose name was Mary, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, then you're wrong. I would ask for evidence for your position, but knowing your posting history, you'll never provide it.

Solitary Man

Avalon

So much fuss over a letter difference...
And yes I am aware of purposeful misspellings... I was merely teasing.

Why thank you. As far as changing my mind concerning Jesus Mythicisism... I shall keep an open mind as I am always open to possibility that I am wrong (my partner knows I frequently am). I look forward to further discussions with you in the future.:wave:

aa5874

There is no known evidence for Jesus born of a human father, that was crucified by Pontius Pilate in any history book. My position is augmented by no evidence and yours is diminished with the same.

Solitary Man

You see, Toto...hand-waving. aa5874 hasn't even bothered to deal with any of this. And by golly, I could go on!

Toto

aa9999 has taken a lot of criticism here for his style of argument. But -

What in this does he need to deal with? Piling one unreliable source on top of others does nothing to create a case for historicism, any more than inferring that there are traditions behind the earliest writing. And we don't have a Brother of Jesus, we have the Brother of the Lord.

There isn't one piece of evidence that firmly establishes that early Christianity was inspired by a Jewish preacher named Jesus, much less Yeshua, for whom there is absolutely no evidence.

Solitary Man

Do you realize what you're saying? It's the worse of creationist tactics. Is there one piece of evidence that points to Yeshua founding Christianity? No. That's absurd. There's not one piece of evidence for anyone existing. No one. You can have a coin with someone's name on it and it alone doesn't prove that that person existed. I know because I have coins with Athena depicted on it. Does that mean that Athena existed? Of course not.

What you've done is that you've simply ignored all the evidence and claimed that because none of the evidence is by itself definitive, there is no evidence. What a load of crap! Creationists pull the same stunt with evolution. Imagine finding only one fossil - is that alone proof of evolution? That's what creationists espouse. Yet you're doing the same thing. For someone who becomes irate at the creationist comparison, you're doing a fine job of emulating them nicely.

Come on back to historical reality where theories are built up from the evidence in order to explain them instead of demanding what the utter worst of creationists demand.

aa5874

I cannot recall a poster with the username of aa9999.

Solitary Man

He's referring to you, though he violates his own command of respect the names of users here. But then again, Toto has never been one to respect the rules himself.

Toto

There is no evidence for someone named Yeshua. You infer that there was someone named Yeshua because there is a Greek document with Jesus, but there is no evidence that there was ever an Aramaic version of this document, or an Aramaic speaking person behind this Greek tale.

Evolution is shown by a number of data points that add confidence to the hypothesis. You don't have enough data points to have any sort of confidence, and you have data that goes against your historicist hypothesis.

Why don't you just post your definitive proof instead of railing on about creationism.