NOGO

Sorry, if I misunderstood. Somehow I got the impression that you were saying that only you and other brilliant people accept the NT for what it is.

If I was off the topic I apologize.

Take care,
NOGO

Anunnaki

What I think Tercel said was that only he and some "enlightened" atheists are capable of accepting the Christian evidence as it stands.
I assume he means all evidence for everything to do with Christianity from the virgin birth,miracles,resurrection,crusades and other atrocities.

This is of course ridiculous and not at all true.
If Tercel and "enlightened" atheists agreed on the evidence as it stands,this unnamed group of enlightened athiests would either be Christians now or Tercel would have become an atheist.

What exactly does he mean by "enlightened atheists" anyway? Are these atheists who have come to accept the claims of Christianity,but are too bitter about losing the debate to give in and join the cult?

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Tercel

Well it seems Anunnaki got no idea what I've been talking about either.

~sigh~ Sometimes I feel I might as well be writing in another language...

Anunnaki

Oh poor Tercel. Why don`t you climb down from your cross for a few minutes and explain to us what you meant when you said that only you (Christian apologists) and a select few "enlightened" atheists are able to accept the evidence as it stands.

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Tercel

I meant that everyone else generally twists the evidence to support their own bias (be that bias Athiestic or Theistic).
Examples of what I'm talking about will perhaps help.
Young Earth Creationists. Okay that should be a sufficient explanation in itself, but just let me remind you of how they so often mispresent the evidence to defend their absurd position.
On the other side of the fence are people like the Jesus-Mythers, eg the extremely amusing <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm" target="_blank">article by Acharya S</a>
Back with the Christians we have Gospels being dated to 40AD, Apologists writing books with arguments extremely one-sided to the point of lying etc.
And again the other side does the equivalent amount of engaging themselves in rewriting history to suit themselves, and mispresenting facts. eg "Hitler was a Christian" etc

When I said "enlightened" atheists, I was referring to the more sensible atheist posters here who don't go for the anti-Christian rubbish just because it's anti-Christian, but rather judge it on it's factual content.

Anunnaki

I was hoping you`d have something better to offer than yet another emotion driven slam of Jesus-mythers.
Comparing Jesus-mythers with creationists does your plight more harm than good in my opinion.
Breaking out Acharya S as the flagship of the Jesus myth position damages you even further. It shows that the only way you could possibly win this argument is to take on the weakest member of the other team.

I don`t claim to be nearly as knowledgeable of church history as most of the other people who discuss the historical Jesus on this site. I`m just an ordinary guy who was brought up Catholic and taught the basic "facts" about Jesus. I found the whole thing to be a bit freaky and rather silly and never gave it another thought for almost 20 years until one day I found myself face to face with an apologist like yourself who was Hell bent on proving to the non-believing world that the Jesus and the resurrection were fact.

I was so annoyed by the arrogance and persistence of this guy that I decided to look into the matter myself and see if any of these "facts" could be verified.
I had always assumed Jesus was a historical figure probably born on Dec 25th in a manger and crucified years later by the Romans. I didn`t buy into any of the supernatural events surrounding his life,but I did assume he was most likely a real person since so many people have held the belief for so many years.

So I started to do some research and immediately discovered that all that "facts" I was taught by the church were pure baloney and there wasn`t even a shred of evidence to support any of it. It all either had no historical basis what so ever or was almost exactly the same as earlier pagan religions with a twist of Judaism.
I then came across the full blown Jesus myth theory and so far it`s the only thing that makes any sense to me when looking at the evidence as it stands. I think people like Doherty have about as much chance of being wrong as Jesus had of floating into the sky.

It`s now been about a year and half since I stumbled upon this website and have had the opportunity hear the Christian arguments first hand from yourself,Layman,bede,Nomad et al.
I really have to thank you guys for helping me reach my final decision on the matter. Your sometimes bizarre and off the wall arguments as well as your immediate ridicule and utter detest of any opinion different from "Christianity is wonderful" and "Jesus is the real son of God sent here to die for our sins" say more than a whole library of books ever could.
I really don`t mean to sound insulting,but there`s really no nice way of saying it.

It seems as if you guys really think you`re on a mission from God and frankly,I find you to be a bit scary.

It really makes no difference to me if there is or isn`t a historical Jesus. It also makes no difference to me if Christianity had turned out to be real. The world would make very little sense if it was real,but I could live with that if that was how things really were.

Theres no chip on my shoulder and I`m not anti-Christian. I am however anti-Christian believers who are constantly trying to shove Christianity down my throat and make it the law of the land.
This website probably wouldn`t even exist if it were not for such a long history of antics from obnoxious and persistent believers Hell bent on pushing their beliefs onto the whole world.

Was Hitler a Christian? I don`t really know much about it,but he certainly was not anti-Christian as seen in <a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm" target="_blank">this collection of photos.</a>
He also was said to have in his posession what he thought to be the Roman lance used to pierce Jesus` body during the alleged crucifixion. It`s also been said that the kernal of his master race idea came from his belief that the Aryan race were decendents of Atlantians.
He was a total nutcase,but was he really a Christian or just using Christianity to rally the people? I don`t know. I`ll leave it to someone who knows more about him to take you up on this one.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

NOGO

Hi Tercel,

I did not read all of the link you mention above but the bits that I did examine were quite factual. Tell me what exactly do you find extreme in this position? I do not want to read the whole think because I have heard much if not all of it before.

I realize that you find the conclusion extreme, ie that Jesus never existed. I wish to know what points in that link seem extreme or untrue to you.

Take care,
NOGO

Tercel

No, I gave Acharya S as an example of biased apologetic lying. I don't think Young Earth Creationists are the flagship of Creationism either, there simply another example of biased truth-twisting.

Ironically, I think Jesus floating into the sky is several orders of mangnitude more likely than Doherty being right.

Perhaps the library of books might have helped. I've also taken something out of the bizarre and off the wall arguments and immediate ridicule etc of many atheist posters here when faced with any other opinion.

Tercel

Um, basically pretty close to the whole thing consists of evidence twisting and crap from start to finish. I've kept it bookmarked since I first read it for amusement's sake.
The point is that the whole thing consists of deliberately misleading implications, twisting of evidence etc it passes from stating fact to treating speculation as fact without missing a beat, and straight out states some pretty wierd speculation as fact. In short: propaganda.

I love the treatment of Paul especially:
It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul."

Especially the last sentence is the kicker. At once it admits that there are references in the historical Jesus in Paul's letters (showing the previous sentence up as false!), but immediately dismisses them as "demonstratably interpolation and forgeries" (No doubt NT scholarship will be deeply greatful for this new information), and then dismisses Paul's writings in general as not by Paul. (!!! I would think that even for the hyper-skeptic, that's rather a large lie to swallow)

With regard to Josephus the low of outright lying is reached:
In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus.

And of course anyone who disagrees with our conclusions is clearly an incompetent so we are justified in saying that "competent scholars agree":
Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.

The ancient parallels is a little to trippy for even parady comment, authough Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm" target="_blank">has a good try</a>.

NOGO

Tercel,

Thanks, I will read the Bede link before answering.

By the way what is your assessment of why Paul never quotes Jesus even once. Even when Paul is making a point of how Christians should behave he never quotes Jesus in support.

How do you explain this?