The Historical Jesus III

[tsig]

Well thank you for posting all of this nonsense because it perfectly illustrates my point, there are many people who will never accept that Jesus existed because they are too emotionally invested in their disgust and outrage at their imaginary intellectual enemies. They are too weak and fantasist to be strong and critical like you! I find this funny. This is what passes for critical thinking and intellectualism in some parts of the world, I understand, but it's not inside academia, which thankfully is mostly insulated from such asinine emotionality by the rigors of the profession.

Any of those evil people posting here? Sounds like you think Lemas might be one of those weak and fantasist people.

Glad those academics are not subject to the common human frailties and can discern the truth of what happened 2000 years ago.

 

[Craig B]

Glad those academics are not subject to the common human frailties and can discern the truth of what happened 2000 years ago.

You don't concern yourself much with ancient history, I suppose.

People who assess the value of ancient sources of information are required to have superhuman powers? Normal human scholarship won't do, eh?

 

[Joey McGee]

What I think is what I said, people are attached to the view that the entire thing was invented because they are emotionally invested in their hatred and outrage for certain aspects of human beings and certain institutions. That's what I think of Lemas, and they did an amazing job of outlining their thought process as to why they stay convinced of this and don't just look at the job at hand in a scholarly way.

Well, I've heard similar statements about the consensus about the big bang, after all, no one was around 14 billion years ago, how could they know?

Yes, feel free to ignore the professional consensus and stick to your guns, many more hours of gleeful gloating at those dumb enough or fantasist enough to believe he was a real man await you in the future, don't mind me...

 

[Mcreal]

Joey McGee appeals to authority and appeals to tradition.

What is the actual evidence "that there probably was a man named Jesus", Joey?

 

[tsig]

What I think is what I said, people are attached to the view that the entire thing was invented because they are emotionally invested in their hatred and outrage for certain aspects of human beings and certain institutions. That's what I think of Lemas, and they did an amazing job of outlining their thought process as to why they stay convinced of this and don't just look at the job at hand in a scholarly way.

Well, I've heard similar statements about the consensus about the big bang, after all, no one was around 14 billion years ago, how could they know?

Yes, feel free to ignore the professional consensus and stick to your guns, many more hours of gleeful gloating at those dumb enough or fantasist enough to believe he was a real man await you in the future, don't mind me...

Projection, it doesn't just happen in the theater.


All HJers eventually resort to ridicule, guess that's all they got.

 

[tsig]

Well thank you for posting all of this nonsense because it perfectly illustrates my point, there are many people who will never accept that Jesus existed because they are too emotionally invested in their disgust and outrage at their imaginary intellectual enemies. They are too weak and fantasist to be strong and critical like you! I find this funny. This is what passes for critical thinking and intellectualism in some parts of the world, I understand, but it's not inside academia, which thankfully is mostly insulated from such asinine emotionality by the rigors of the profession.

People who assess the value of ancient sources of information are required to have superhuman powers? Normal human scholarship won't do, eh?

Take it up with Joey.

 

[tsig]

Joey McGee appeals to authority and appeals to tradition.

What is the actual evidence "that there probably was a man named Jesus", Joey?

He also compares us with Creationists and accuses us of gloating.

(I don't even own a gloat)

 

[Leumas]

What I think is what I said, people are attached to the view that the entire thing was invented because they are emotionally invested in their hatred and outrage for certain aspects of human beings and certain institutions. That's what I think of Lemas, and they did an amazing job of outlining their thought process as to why they stay convinced of this and don't just look at the job at hand in a scholarly way.

Well, I've heard similar statements about the consensus about the big bang, after all, no one was around 14 billion years ago, how could they know?

Yes, feel free to ignore the professional consensus and stick to your guns, many more hours of gleeful gloating at those dumb enough or fantasist enough to believe he was a real man await you in the future, don't mind me...

I must congratulate you on such a clever ruse of REVERSING THE FACTS... clever indeed.

The pecuniary and egotistical and occupational and psychological and emotional and religious and societal investments are with the ones who prefer to believe fairy tales and mythical fables despite not a single shred of evidence that is not a badly made copy of a title deed that was fraudulently fabricated in the first place by mountebanks and charlatans no different from any that we have had throughout the ages and still have today popping up everywhere there are enough fools stupid enough to DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

The process of fabricating Christianity was no different from that of the worship of John Frum started by primitive people and carried on by hucksters and brigands.

If it were not for the fact that the ancestors of the current generations of Christians were forced at the tip of a sword to swallow the Buybull claptrap as reality and that those pathetic defeated ancestors along with their vanquishing overlords kept on forcing the myths by hook or by crook down into the brains and psyches of their descendants and the descendants of even more conquered and pillaged peoples, no one today would have considered even for a second that the Buybull is any different from say The 1001 Arabian Nights or that Jesus and his sky daddy were any different from the thousands of gods and demigods who were the products of hyperactive imaginations of countless cultures during the infancy of humanity when they used to shiver and quake in benighted fear and ignorance of reality.

If only people could shed the pall of societal indoctrination and inculcation off of their brains and evaluate Christianity with the very same skepticism they utilize to scrutinize other fairy tales and myths and shams and Pyramid Schemes and Multilevel Marketing Scams then maybe they might realize the extent of the fraud.

Unfortunately it is not a simple matter of just peeking through from under the heavy dark pall to see the light.

Having been for so long living in a benighted darkness their eyes are no longer capable of withstanding the brightness of reality.

Thus even if they do manage to gather the courage to glance for a moment they close their eyes again and shield them with their hands because of the pain the brightness of reason and rationality caused their long atrophied retinas.

They then duck back under their pall and start cursing and maligning the people encouraging them to come out from the darkness and join them in basking under the healthy curative bright sunshine of science and rationality and logic and reason and humanitarianism.

Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship — Thomas S. Verenna

...
Should the academy limit a critical position by intimidating and ridiculing those few scholars who do not believe Jesus existed historically into submitting to the consensus of the majority? Or, as Ehrman implies, should scholars who doubt the certainty of historicity be fired from academic posts or just denied work in academia?

Have we here, in our modern world so many decades removed from the papal encyclical Divino afflante spiritu, the only unchallengeable subject in the whole of the vagaries of historical inquiry?

Have we discovered the very grail upon which we place our proclamation, dogmatic as it is, that we have found--with certainty--an unassailable fact and an impregnable position: the historicity of the figure of Jesus?
This is disconcerting; how reminiscent of the sort of mistreatment minimalists received at the hands of those academics who were certain of the historicity of the Old Testament patriarchs and the patriarchal narratives.

So too those scholars who were certain of the historicity of Moses and the Exodus or those who found great biblical usefulness in Speiser’s translation of the Nuzi tablets.
...​

 

[The Greater Fool]

Leumas has more than a passing familiarity with these issues, I wouldn't write him/her off so quickly.

[Don't let Leumas know I said this, I'll never hear the end if it.]

 

[The Big Dog]

What I cannot understand is that even sane people who are supposedly atheists cannot see that the Pauline epistles are nothing but fakery and pretense with the aim of bamboozling and fleecing.

Why would Paul have been anything different from the THOUSANDS of vile mountebanks that we have TODAY let alone throughout the history of humanity... except perhaps in not having in fact existed except as a pseudonym for a groups of hucksters.

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

[*]What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.
[/LIST][/indent]

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus' sake

• What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

[/indent]

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

Now here is the original post with the craftily and deliberately omitted bits in highlights

Typical wily huckstering and dissimulation all for the sake of Jesus.

Can you now see what I mean about the whole Jesus CULT right from the onset having been nothing but lies for Jesus' sake... much like any other cult fabricated by any of the men in the post quoted below.

I snipped this one because he embedded his earlier quote above.

Why would the original fabricators of the Christian cult have been any different from their later followers like the ones above or imitators like the ones below?

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

Nothing like repetition to DRIVE that point home!

 

[dejudge]

Consensus ---a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

This usage of the word consensus is yours personally, not the sense that everyone else is using.

You claim is false or you don't know what you are talking about.

You have confirmed that you have no idea what consensus means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Consensus ---a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

 

[dejudge]

Ehrman : "There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI

hmmmm, yes where are all of these reputable scholars? Hmmm

Consensus is not evidence? Wow great, no one knew that until today.

http://ehrmanblog.org/on-scholarly-consensus/

Ehrman forgot to tell us that most Scholars who teach that Jesus existed also believe God exist.

Ehrman forgot to tell us that most Scholars are probably Christians who pray to Jesus for salvation and to go to heaven.

Ehrman also forgot to tell us that Christians Scholars go to Sunday School and the University Chapel to repeat the Creed of the Church and must tell people that Jesus existed or will be denied entrance to heaven by Jesus when he comes in the cloud.

There is NO Scholar in any college or University in the Western World that can present any actual evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman failed to do so in "Did Jesus Exist?".

The true consensus among Scholars, Christian or not, is that there is little or NO historical evidence of an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

What I think is what I said, people are attached to the view that the entire thing was invented because they are emotionally invested in their hatred and outrage for certain aspects of human beings and certain institutions. That's what I think of Lemas, and they did an amazing job of outlining their thought process as to why they stay convinced of this and don't just look at the job at hand in a scholarly way.

You are constantly mis-representing Scholarship with your propaganda. You are fundamentally a manufacturer of falsehood.

 

[dejudge]

Anyone who argues that Jesus was a mere man with a human father MUST show that the Canon of the Church is a pack of lies/fiction/myth.

Ehrman who argues for an HJ has shown and stated that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, events which most likely did not happen and contains multiple forgeries or false attribution.

Ehrman has discredited the NT which is his main source for the HJ argument.

Ehrman had no idea that by discrediting his primary sources that he inherently destroy his HJ argument.

The HJ argument is a farce since it was developed using sources which were established fiction or non-historical.

 

[Mcreal]

Anyone who argues that Jesus was a mere man with a human father MUST show that the Canon of the Church is a pack of lies/fiction/myth.

You mean (?) -

"Anyone who argues that Jesus was a mere man, with a human father, [merely] shows that the Canon of the Church is a pack of lies/fiction/myth"​

 

[Mcreal]

From the link:

"An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomonon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it."

Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge, Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University.​

The argument from incredibility. The rest are of a similar character.

Most of them say we know Jesus existed because the NT says he existed.

Edwin Judge is highly religious, as are most, if not all, of the academics in that Center.

Then there's the obligatory insulting of those who disagree:

"So, in one sense, I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot."

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University​

False equivalence.

 

[Craig B]

Deleted.

 

[maximara]

That's a revealing argument. Why believe in the historicity of Paul? Well, among other things it's not necessary to mythicism that Paul be declared fictitious. What if it was necessary? One wonders.

As I said before if Paul did bring something to the pro historical Jesus I could understand the Radical Dutch position but he doesn't.

 

[dejudge]

You mean (?) -

"Anyone who argues that Jesus was a mere man, with a human father, [merely] shows that the Canon of the Church is a pack of lies/fiction/myth"​

This must be a lie or merely a lie if Jesus of Nazareth was the known son of Joseph.

Matthew 1:18---- Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Why did the authors of the Canon lie so much?

John 14:6 ---Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The NT Canon is riddled with lies from CONCEPTION TO ASCENSION if Jesus was a mere mam with a human father.

 

[Craig B]

As I said before if Paul did bring something to the pro historical Jesus I could understand the Radical Dutch position but he doesn't.

Oh yes he does. He doesn't bring us a biography of Jesus, but that isn't the only possible evidence. He brings us a background that contains people we meet with in Jesus' biographical notices, and situations of time and place discussed here many times.

Of course all this can be explained away. Aretas is not Aretas. Brother of the Lord is not a brother. James is not James; Peter is not Peter etc etc. This may always and anywhere be done to any seeming evidence, but it is a laborious and piecemeal solution.

Why not therefore dispense with the whole lot by declaring Paul to be non existent, and pronouncing his alleged writings to be a forgery, fabricated centuries later for the purposes of deception? That makes life a lot easier for the Mythicists.