Godless Apostate

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why are you debating the issue if you think it's a silly argument?

There appeared to be a few smears that were unfair.

We should always defend skeptics, they keep all of us honest!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I don't have to, as I believe the burden of proof is on those stating the so called facts. Besides, I am clear with my position.

It's almost impossible to debate an issue with someone when they don't say what they consider to be proof. How can they give you an answer when they don't know what you want.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There appeared to be a few smears that were unfair.

We should always defend skeptics, they keep all of us honest!

Nothing wrong with defending the skeptics but I also think we should have an open mind and not just dismiss what the other side is saying. If something someone has said or posted gives me pause for thought I will consider it as a possibility.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's almost impossible to debate an issue with someone when they don't say what they consider to be proof. How can they give you an answer when they don't know what you want.

The story of Jesus is so full of BS there can be no real proof but how about start with something at least a little believable?

I seriously can't believe in this 21st century people can still be conned over this and many other fairy tales, I can't figure out if it's stupidity or fear that allows this to continue.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by T@T

The story of Jesus is so full of BS there can be no real proof but how about start with something at least a little believable?

I seriously can't believe in this 21st century people can still be conned over this and many other fairy tales, I can't figure out if it's stupidity or fear that allows this to continue.

How about this historical Jesus not having these supernatural powers and he was merely a normal person that religion is supposedly based on.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

How about this historical Jesus not having these supernatural powers and he was merely a normal person that religion is supposedly based on.

Well lets face it, never ever has there been a shred of evidence that supernatural powers existed, same goes for miracles, but if the historical Jesus was just a man then the religion is based on lies and fairy tales anyway.

Of course I have believed that for 40 years anyway.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Yes, I doubt they exist. There is no evidence they did exist. But this barely matters, since there were no miracles associated with the place (at least I don't think there were any)...

No physical evidence, but plenty of literary evidence is absolutely valid to consider in the estimation of historical information.

A religion/myth was started somewhere - perhaps this was simply the story they put together?

So, do you honestly believe that a "simple story" just "put together" by a group of people (which people? where? why?) was enough to convince thousands upon thousands of the efficacy of Christianity?

See, this is precisely the problem I noted in the last of your posts to which In replied: there is NO FUNCTIONAL APPARATUS within the existing cultural, religious context to support your incredibly flimsy notion of "they made up a bunch of stuff." Against a first century Jewish background, the most plausible model for the emergence of Christianity by far is the actual existence of an apocalyptic, messianic figure.

Believable does not mean proof, and you know it. The theory does not make proof. There appears to be some vague mention of Jesus, but nothing regarding Jesus.

Why do you keep blathering on about "proof"?? It is a word that I have never used positively in this discussion. Obviously, proof of the existence of Jesus—or any other specific Jewish peasant, for that matter—is a virtual impossibility. You will notice that when dealing with events and figures from antiquity I and other historians will always speak in terms of probability, and that is precisely what I have been arguing to this point: that on the balance of probabilities, factoring in all the available information about the political, social, religious climate in first century Palestine, the most reasonable conclusion is that there was a man who really lived and died in Judaea upon whom the stories of Jesus are based. This leads me to the next of your flimsy rebuttals:

I don't have to explain it, as it is pretty well unknown. It was two thousand years ago.

Wrong. If you are going to take a position against the strong historical consensus, then the onus is absolutely upon you to justify your opinion. To this point, the notion that "some ancient people just made up some silly stuff" is rightly and easily rejected. If you deny the strong, historical plausibility of the existence of Jesus, then I would expect you to have a good reason for doing so, and as far as I can tell you do not.

You may be wrong about that. There is no proof of Jesus.

Wrong about what? Your experience with ancient history, or the problematic nature of ancient historiography? On the first point I concede that I could be wrong, but if I am, then it strikes me as bizarre that you would fail to recognise what we see in the NT Gospels as fairly common patterns of ancient accounts of history. On the second point, no, I am not. I have never claimed that there is proof of the existence of Jesus, only that it is perfectly reasonable to accept the strong plausibility of his existence.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

...Regarding the story of Jesus, whatever actually happened I believe is no where near the truth and all we have left is the legend. I am correct about the 'no where near the truth' part, I simply extend it to the entire story since the bulk of the story is fiction. My argument is not unreasonable.

It is unreasonable because to this point you have not allowed for even a remote possibility to believe any part of the story of Jesus. You have to this point not made any allowance for the very likely event that the Gospels are grand embellishments of actual events that featured real people. This is the very definition of irrational scepticism.

We should (I believe) use a bit (a lot) of skepticism about everything.

I agree completely and applaud your appeal to the exercise of scepticism in our study of history. But there is a massive difference between the responsible employment of scepticism which allows for a variety of types of historical evidences, and then there is your irrational insistence on an impossible burden of physical proof for the existence of a socially insignificant Jewish peasant. You are not being "a bit" sceptical here: your responses are rather intentionally obtuse.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No physical evidence, but plenty of literary evidence is absolutely valid to consider in the estimation of historical information.

I suppose the problem is what religious people accept as evidence. It is a good thing the scientific community has different standards.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, do you honestly believe that a "simple story" just "put together" by a group of people (which people? where? why?) was enough to convince thousands upon thousands of the efficacy of Christianity?

Obviously the story of Jesus was fake, so perhaps we start with how a religion could start with a fake premise? Don't all the religions sort of have the same thing in common? I don't have that answer.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

See, this is precisely the problem I noted in the last of your posts to which In replied: there is NO FUNCTIONAL APPARATUS within the existing cultural, religious context to support your incredibly flimsy notion of "they made up a bunch of stuff." Against a first century Jewish background, the most plausible model for the emergence of Christianity by far is the actual existence of an apocalyptic, messianic figure.

I don't see it that way. We have this massive fake story, so it must be based off a real person? Why? Having Jesus be fake makes the entire story much simpler.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why do you keep blathering on about "proof"?? It is a word that I have never used positively in this discussion. Obviously, proof of the existence of Jesus—or any other specific Jewish peasant, for that matter—is a virtual impossibility. You will notice that when dealing with events and figures from antiquity I and other historians will always speak in terms of probability, and that is precisely what I have been arguing to this point: that on the balance of probabilities, factoring in all the available information about the political, social, religious climate in first century Palestine, the most reasonable conclusion is that there was a man who really lived and died in Judaea upon whom the stories of Jesus are based. This leads me to the next of your flimsy rebuttals:

Blathering? I haven't made sense? Is that your accusation? Or did you simply pick a word you found to insult someone who you are debating with? You can look up 'proof' in a dictionary (or understand it as 'sufficient evidence'). There is much evidence of many other people throughout history, unfortunately for the religion, there is not enough evidence for us to consider Jesus to be real. And I keep repeating: The religion had to have started somewhere, had it not been for the lies and myths that were invented, perhaps the standard for proof may be lower for Jesus.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. If you are going to take a position against the strong historical consensus, then the onus is absolutely upon you to justify your opinion. To this point, the notion that "some ancient people just made up some silly stuff" is rightly and easily rejected. If you deny the strong, historical plausibility of the existence of Jesus, then I would expect you to have a good reason for doing so, and as far as I can tell you do not.

The strong historical consensus? The consensus is on probability of what may have occurred, yet they are not sure. The religion started somewhere, we know that, and we know people documented it after the fact, could the entire tale be fiction? Seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong about what? Your experience with ancient history, or the problematic nature of ancient historiography? On the first point I concede that I could be wrong, but if I am, then it strikes me as bizarre that you would fail to recognise what we see in the NT Gospels as fairly common patterns of ancient accounts of history. On the second point, no, I am not. I have never claimed that there is proof of the existence of Jesus, only that it is perfectly reasonable to accept the strong plausibility of his existence.

I agree then, I do believe Jesus the man may have existed, but considering the minimal information we have, and the outrageous story, I side with occam's razor - the entire story must be made up.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I suppose the problem is what religious people accept as evidence. It is a good thing the scientific community has different standards.

Except much of the scientific community doesn't have different standards. There are plenty of scientific theories that are based on similar evidence.

Obviously the story of Jesus was fake, so perhaps we start with how a religion could start with a fake premise? Don't all the religions sort of have the same thing in common? I don't have that answer.

How do you tell the difference between fake and embellished? Of course religions have many things in common. They appeal to the same parts of human experience.

I don't see it that way. We have this massive fake story, so it must be based off a real person? Why? Having Jesus be fake makes the entire story much simpler.

No really it doesn't. It's only simpler if you assume it's all fake. Even Richard Carrier only concludes that Jesus MIGHT not have existed, and hosts of problems have been identified with some of the basic premises.

Blathering? I haven't made sense? Is that your accusation? Or did you simply pick a word you found to insult someone who you are debating with? You can look up 'proof' in a dictionary (or understand it as 'sufficient evidence'). There is much evidence of many other people throughout history, unfortunately for the religion, there is not enough evidence for us to consider Jesus to be real. And I keep repeating: The religion had to have started somewhere, had it not been for the lies and myths that were invented, perhaps the standard for proof may be lower for Jesus.

That evidence is also based on probability. If you apply the same techniques you apply below your left thinking that a great many people historians are confident existed didn't actually exist because so much that was written about him them is beyond belief.

The strong historical consensus? The consensus is on probability of what may have occurred, yet they are not sure. The religion started somewhere, we know that, and we know people documented it after the fact, could the entire tale be fiction? Seems reasonable.

Now you sound like a young earth creationist who says, it's only a probability that evolution is true, but we don't really know, so it's possible that it's false and therefore the world is young. It sounds like your saying that because its possible the consensus is wrong, therefore it is wrong.

The vast majority of science is established using probabilities. So much for scientific evidence being different.

I agree then, I do believe Jesus the man may have existed, but considering the minimal information we have, and the outrageous story, I side with occam's razor - the entire story must be made up.

So you don't really side with Occam's razor. No part of Occam's razor justifies the leap from we don't know very much to therefore it's all false. You might as well be making an argument to irreducible complexity.

Really, which explanation is simpler?

1. Christianity exists because some of Jesus followers were convinced he was raised from the dead (we have witnessed similar things among followers of modern cults)
2. Christianity exists because some Pagan elites decided to be pen pals and write what is effectivly an ancient version of Shrek about some guy that didn't exist by borrowing heavily from pagan traditions?

[Vulcan]

I don't buy into the " he rose from the dead" or other miracles but I think it's far simpler to believe that Jesus was an actual person than to believe he wasn't. If he didn't exist it was a pretty big conspiracy beyond even the Christian exaggerations.

There have been many other masters over the ages that aren't disputed as being living persons, so why the refusal to believe that Jesus existed?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Against a first century Jewish background, the most plausible model for the emergence of Christianity by far is the actual existence of an apocalyptic, messianic figure.

Really? I never got this from my "historical Jesus" class (signifying I am no expert). But it sounded like there were a ton of "impending apocalypse" dudes running around in Israel at the time (John the Baptist being another - maybe even more popular at the time - one).

I thought Jesus just kind of got lucky with Paul spreading his message (more so than the other apocalypse guys) and Paul being an excellent Greek and Roman speaker, well-traveled, etc etc.

[Textcritic]

I had an exchange about the historicity of Jesus with Richard Carrier a few years back that was posted in the Sceptics thread. For the sake of simplicity, I re-post it here. It pretty well addresses all of T&T's and NW's points in the past few posts.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The Case for the Existence of Jesus of Nazareth
In the following, I will outline as simply as I can manage the argument for the life of the man Jesus, who lived and died in Palestine in the early first cent. CE, and upon whom the Christian religion was based. Like all historical investigations, the topic of the historical Jesus is one that depends upon historical probabilities. So, the case I will be mounting is a positive argument that does not purport any certainty about the existence of Jesus, but rather is summarised as follows:

It is historically more plausible that the man Jesus existed than it is that he was invented and mythologized.

The reason for this is quite simple: In the historical and cultural context of first cent. Palestine, it is practically impossible that the claims made by the Church about Jesus would have been invented, and virtually certain that they would have gained no traction. On the contrary, it is much more reasonable to expect that:
· there was an actual man from Nazareth named Jesus.
· he was a religious zealot who led an apocalyptic religious movement in the Judaean hill country.
· he caused a religious disturbance in Jerusalem that led to his arrest, trial and Roman execution.
· something happened following his execution to lead his followers to assert his resurrection, and which laid the groundwork for the enormously popular early Christian movement.

First and foremost, Jesus was Jewish, and all of his first followers were Jewish. My specialty is early Judaism and in particular, apocalyptic movements, "scripture" interpretation, and the transition between "temple religion" and "book religion". I know something about Jewish thought, Jewish worldviews, and more pertinently, Jewish messianic expectations that were percolating in the politically volatile and highly charged religious climate in first cent. Palestine. Most Jews had known nothing but foreign occupation for the better part of the past half millennium, with a lone possible exception of the independent Hasmonaean state that existed for about 100 years before the invasion of Pompey in the 60's BCE. Most Jews were weary of Roman taxation, and disillusioned by the failures of their own nationalistic ambitions, and the corruption that was rampant in their own religious establishment. Huge numbers of Jews were suspicious of foreign influence, and as a result were extremely dubious about the pervasive influences of Hellenistic culture that had been intruding on their own cultural and religious ideals. It is important to note that for centuries the Jews had understood themselves to be a divinely favoured ethnic group, and "religiously separate" and distinct from every other people group on the planet: this is a somewhat simplified and rudimentary definition of "holiness". Because of their past history, and in line with their own self perception, it had become common for many—perhaps most Jews to believe that their fortunes would be reversed by way of a movement by God. They expected that God would intervene, and that he would empower (or "anoint") a national leader to wage a holy war against the Romans, which would result in Jewish global supremacy, and the establishment of an eternal divine rule that was centred in Jerusalem. This, in very basic terms was what they understood to be the "kingdom of God".

So, this was the world into which Jesus was born, and in which he lived. It is practically certain that Jesus was an apocalyptic revolutionary. He embraced the idea of divine intervention, and he actively campaigned for the imminent intervention of God. He may or may not have believed that he was the "messiah", that is, the anointed one of God to restore the kingdom of Israel, to defeat the Romans, and to inaugurate the kingdom of God. He attracted a good deal of attention for his ideas, and amassed a following among his local, bucolic contemporaries.

This basic storyline is what is revealed by a close read, and a historically and critically sensitive understanding of the Gospels. They are not eyewitness accounts, but they do contain numerous kernals of information that are regarded by any historical measure to be accurate reflections of a real movement led by a real man named Jesus.

Now, let's consider the contrary: that this particular Jewish messiah (Jesus was NOT the only one to make messianic claims in the first century!) was fabricated to fulfill popular Jewish expectations. That they invented a miracle-working peasant preacher to fulfil the scriptural prophecies about the divinely anointed national hero who would vanquish the enemies and oppressors of Judaea. In all honesty, why would any Jew in the first place have invented such a figure, and in the second place, why would any other Jew choose to believe in him? Apart from the purported miracles, Jesus was socially unexceptional, and were someone to invent a messiah, he most certainly would have appeared much more closely aligned to the following example:

Without even getting to the enormous problem of Jesus's death for Jews and the common messianic narrative, the case against the historical Jesus is already on very shaky ground. In short, the construct that Richard Carrier, Robert Price and the other mythicists want us to believe is neither historically nor culturally possible. It is much more probable that Jesus actually existed.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a response to Richard Carrier's contention about the historicity of Jesus, which was helpfully provided by Thor. I should note at the outset that I have not spent so much time investigating the historicity of Jesus as has Carrier, but I do approach the question as a more general historian of the Second Temple Jewish period, and I do not believe that Carrier is all that well versed in this discipline.

I’m certain that I am not as well versed in the philosophical nuances of what Carrier is getting at, but this does not sound right to me at all. Without knowing what he envisions by “those teachings” in this context, it is difficult to respond, but I still stand by my point: that many of the historical claims maintained by the first Christians about Jesus—that is, is modest social standing, his rejection in his hometown, his arrest, trial and execution—are all highly plausible historical realia, and would actually present themselves as self-defeating objectives of invention in a Second Temple Jewish milieu. In other words, it is much more historically plausible that an actual man existed from Nazareth than it is that he was invented by eager followers.

On this point, I was probably presenting too modest a qualification of the Jewish culture from which Christianity emerged. What “most Jews” thought or did is exceptionally relevant to this discussion, because in broad contours, and based on everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) that we know about Judaism and Jewish life from the period, practically EVERY Jew—whether in Jerusalem, Samaria, or in Alexandria—agreed about several fundamental principles. All Jews agreed about the characteristic singularity of God: the god of Judaism was the only God for every Jew. They agreed about the cruciality of “scripture”, even though their own understanding about what constituted scripture differed dramatically. They agreed about their peculiarity as a people, and consequently agreed about the future glorious emergence of the kingdom of God made manifest in a new kingdom of Israel. They undoubtedly differed with regards to their expectations about the shape and circumstances that they expected to result in this bright future, but elements of this apocalyptic worldview are prevalent in virtually all Jewish literature, including those sources which are barely recognisably “apocalyptic.”

For a good synopsis of Second Temple Jewish religion, culture, and life, consult Lester Grabbe’s “popular” book, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus

Also, see the following by Lawrence Schiffman, Understanding Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, and From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism

Also see George Nickelsburg’s excellent primer, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and Mishnah (2nd Edition)

So then, A Jewish message—and I maintain that Christian doctrine and traditions are strongly and almost universally “Jewish”—that is in contravention with these principles is not even remotely likely to survive among Jews. And while I agree that Christianity was note successful among “most Jews”, the majority of its earliest proponents were Synagogue-attending Jews. I suspect, based on the bits of Carrier that I have read, that he doesn’t have a really good grasp of Second Temple Jewish culture, life or religion, and that his off-hand handling of matters in this area leads him to make some of the assertions that he is prone to making. In other words, as one with professional training in Second Temple Jewish literature, religion and history, as one who is in regular and constant conversation with large numbers of other professionally trained scholars of Second Temple Jewish history, literature and religion I have yet to encounter anyone who would bother to deny the historical realia of Jesus.

The problem here is that even in Carrier’s allegory Mormon religion is still very comfortably at home within 19th cent. American life. I agree, the stories of Moroni were not invented to satisfy “most Americans”, but the Mormon teachings were first adopted universally by AMERICANS, and their perceived realia depended upon their integration of and within American culture. So too for Christianity: its foundations depended upon something that approximated Judaism, and any hypothetical origins offered by the mythicists as far as I can see absolutely do not.

What Carrier is doing here is basically invoking Bertrand Russell’s teapot in space. His argument depends on the possibility that there were radical fringe groups of Jews under the veneer of everything we know about Second Temple Judaism, who harboured thoughts and dreams about a dying-rising-saviour god. No doubt. This is certainly possible, and just as no one can debunk the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, so too I am incapable of disproving the possibility of existence of this odd and completely unattested Jewish sectarian movement.

However, Carrier’s problem is that unlike the many proponents of Schweitzer’s model for the historical Jesus, he has no evidence. At this point, when making his case about the possibility of an ethereal messiah figure that might resemble early Christian depictions of Jesus he would do well to cite some sort of evidence. Unfortunately, outside of the odd mythicist interpretation of the early Christian writings, there is not one shred of documented evidence for such a movement or doctrine. In the end, one is faced with a decision: to concede the historical plausibility of Jesus of Nazareth that easily conforms to everything that we know about Second Temple Judaism, or to imagine a mythical Christ that rests on nebulous interpretive injunctions and imagined social constructs. For all his bluster about his rigorous employment of philosophical and historical canons, I am quite frankly surprised that Carrier would be so easily carried away by such fanciful and unsubstantiated assertions.

My whole point in citing 11QMelchizedek from the Qumran Scrolls was precisely to illustrate how badly Jesus fit this model, to the point that it strains credulity to imagine how the subject of the Corinthian creed could ever be confused with Daniel’s Son of Man:

Carrier and the other mythicists continue to persistently miss this fundamental feature of the Christian idea about Jesus. They must somehow ignore or alegorise his humanness, and they must make the quantum leap in the absence of any evidence for his divinity somehow tied to the traditions of his death.

The earliest Christian creeds and teachings are universally binding on this point: Jesus was a man who died. He was NOT a celestial being, and he did NOT in any way conform to any imagined messianic prediction from Jewish scriptures. It thus remains much more plausible that these features were not inventions clumsily affixed to a mythical Christ being, since the teachings of the earliest Christians quite naturally proceed from the existence of an historical figure.

I must confess, I am unfamiliar with the nuances of Carrier’s theory, but in my opinion, Doherty’s ideas are in no way defensible. However, I do concur on his final point here: “if no Jesus myth theory is correct, then the theory he articulates is indeed what is probably the case.” This is absolutely true. And since every Jesus myth theory proposed relies on no documented bits of evidence, and depends on flimsy and unsubstantiated interpretations of the early Christian literature, then I feel fairly justified in my continued defense of an historical Jesus.

Thanks again, Thor, for contacting Carrier and furnishing his rebuttal here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Really? I never got this from my "historical Jesus" class (signifying I am no expert). But it sounded like there were a ton of "impending apocalypse" dudes running around in Israel at the time (John the Baptist being another - maybe even more popular at the time - one).

I thought Jesus just kind of got lucky with Paul spreading his message (more so than the other apocalypse guys) and Paul being an excellent Greek and Roman speaker, well-traveled, etc etc.

I don't disagree at all, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. It really doesn't matter that one of the many early Jewish apocalyptic prophets achieved the kind of notoriety that Jesus did—you are right in the respect that Christianity benefitted enormously from the development of these ideas and their distribution on a global platform. My point is that Christianity could not have emerged from Palestine in the first place in the absence of an apocalyptic messianic figure like Jesus, or the Teacher of Righteousness, or Simon Bar Kokhba.

I am arguing that it is much more plausible that Christianity stemmed from the actual existence of an apocalyptic prophet than the alternative: that it was forged from a disconnected sampling of pre-existing pagan myths from various sources with no founding figure from Judaea.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Now you sound like a young earth creationist who says, it's only a probability that evolution is true, but we don't really know, so it's possible that it's false and therefore the world is young.

This actually made me laugh for several minutes. I don't believe Jesus existed at all and that makes me a creationist? Do you realize how silly that is? We have the story today that we know IS NOT TRUE, why add in the 'well, we do know Jesus actually was real, but the 'historians' added the other parts'? If they lied about some, they may have lied about all of it. I believe they made up the story after some major event (perhaps a mass execution of cult followers, but who knows).

Originally Posted by sworkhard

So you don't really side with Occam's razor. No part of Occam's razor justifies the leap from we don't know very much to therefore it's all false. You might as well be making an argument to irreducible complexity.

It isn't that we don't know very much, we know lots. In fact, we know 99.99% of the story is false and man made. So, using Occam's Razor, we can assume the entire story can be made up, as that is the simplest explanation.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This actually made me laugh for several minutes. I don't believe Jesus existed at all and that makes me a creationist? Do you realize how silly that is? We have the story today that we know IS NOT TRUE, why add in the 'well, we do know Jesus actually was real, but the 'historians' added the other parts'? If they lied about some, they may have lied about all of it. I believe they made up the story after some major event (perhaps a mass execution of cult followers, but who knows).



It isn't that we don't know very much, we know lots. In fact, we know 99.99% of the story is false and man made. So, using Occam's Razor, we can assume the entire story can be made up, as that is the simplest explanation.

That's the worst use of Occams Rasor ever

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This actually made me laugh for several minutes. I don't believe Jesus existed at all and that makes me a creationist? Do you realize how silly that is? We have the story today that we know IS NOT TRUE, why add in the 'well, we do know Jesus actually was real, but the 'historians' added the other parts'? If they lied about some, they may have lied about all of it. I believe they made up the story after some major event (perhaps a mass execution of cult followers, but who knows).



It isn't that we don't know very much, we know lots. In fact, we know 99.99% of the story is false and man made. So, using Occam's Razor, we can assume the entire story can be made up, as that is the simplest explanation.

That's like saying no one ever caught a fish since everyone exaggerates how big the fish was and the evidence is gone because they released it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This actually made me laugh for several minutes. I don't believe Jesus existed at all and that makes me a creationist? Do you realize how silly that is? We have the story today that we know IS NOT TRUE, why add in the 'well, we do know Jesus actually was real, but the 'historians' added the other parts'? If they lied about some, they may have lied about all of it. I believe they made up the story after some major event (perhaps a mass execution of cult followers, but who knows).







It isn't that we don't know very much, we know lots. In fact, we know 99.99% of the story is false and man made. So, using Occam's Razor, we can assume the entire story can be made up, as that is the simplest explanation.

Setting aside your abuse of poor old Occam, how exactly do you know this? The equivalent of only 1 / 10,000 words in the NT is accurate? There are 138,000 words in the entire NT: which are the 14 of them that you find to be historically unobjectionable?

I only ask this absurd question, because I think you have quite vividly demonstrated that you really do not know enough about the story of Jesus to even judge the facts from the fiction.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This actually made me laugh for several minutes. I don't believe Jesus existed at all and that makes me a creationist? Do you realize how silly that is?

I don't want to speak for sworkhard or anyone else, but I think you missed the point there.

You sound like a creationist because you completely dismiss evidence that you aren't familiar with, don't understand, and apparently refuse to admit even exists.

You dismiss the opinions of people who have dedicated years/lives/careers to studying this particular subject and seem to scoff at entire fields of study, even though you yourself have no expertise in the subject.

You have made up your mind for whatever reason and have told us that you won't even consider alternatives because you know the truth.

So yeah, just like a creationist.

[T@T]

Funny, the last thing on my mind to describe Nage Waza is "creationist".

People dedicate years or even all their lives on silly things all the time but if they want to debate their craft they should expect to be called out for it.

If someone like Textcritic wants to devote which must be an enormous amount of time on ancient writings and fairy tales that's his right but if he uses these story's as fact in a debate I think even he knows arseholes like me will pounce on him.(or at least try)

I do however respect Text because at least it's part of his job. It's the bible thumpers who literary believe this crap that gets me all riled up.