The Historical Jesus III

[Joey McGee]

Joey Mcgee's consensus is a product of Chinese whispers--un-evidence propaganda.

Hilarious...

Joey Mcgee cannot ever present the names of a 100 secular historians in the whole world who have conceded that Jesus Christ did exist as a mere man with a human father.

Getting sad though as time goes on...

 

[dejudge]

They're not even that, according to IanS! They're mere believers. And as regards non-biblical evidence, it is demanded that we produce witnesses who knew Jesus personally, as if that was the only criterion of acceptability. I've tried to point out it's not, but in response merely get obviously provocative, disingenuous repetition. It's best left alone, I think.

Dealing with dejudge is much more rewarding.

Well, let us test your claims.

Since you cannot present any non-biblical eye-witness evidence of your HJ and that it is NOT the only criterion of acceptability then simply tell us of the other "evidence" that you have.

Surely, you must have historical data for your HJ.

Do you even have a non-biblical eyewitness account of any disciple or apostle of your HJ?

Sorry, I forgot!!!

Your HJ may not have had any disciples or apostles!!!

Who was your HJ? How and when did he die??

Was your HJ the Messiah of the Jews, Bible Jesus or an OBSCURE criminal/rabbi/preacher/IDIOT/false prophet/ liar/madman???

You can't remember???

 

[dejudge]

Joey Mcgee's consensus is a product of Chinese whispers--un-evidence propaganda.

Hilarious... Getting sad though as time goes on...

You are laughing at yourself.

Carrier an historian who argues Jesus most likely was MYTHICAL is evidence that there is a consensus that Jesus existed!!!!

What absolute absurdity!!!

Carrier is evidence which suggest that there is NO consensus among secular historians.

 

[Belz...]

What absolute nonsense!!!

It is the dictionary which gives the definition of 'consensus'.

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



It is the dictionary which CONTRADICTS you.

I quoted the part in your very own link that CONTRADICTS you, Dejudge. Here it is again:

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

You pick one definition and ignore the other even after it's been pointed out to you. That is a dishonest way to discuss a topic.

 

[Craig B]

Well, let us test your claims.

OK. I'm prepared to give ground on my claim that "Dealing with dejudge is much more rewarding". Oh, gosh, you're not challenging that one.

Do you even have a non-biblical eyewitness account of any disciple or apostle of your HJ?

Right on cue, you repeat something I dismissed when set down by IanS. This I call the "naughty schoolboy" tactic, dejudge.

I see you're still, on the same principle, upping your repetition rate of "Chinese whispers" and "propaganda". Puerile stuff, but quite amusing.

Was your HJ the Messiah of the Jews, Bible Jesus or an OBSCURE criminal/rabbi/preacher/IDIOT/false prophet/ liar/madman???

Is this your version of Lewis's Trilemma?

 

[maximara]

Still you can't bring them closer in respect by merely mentioning the history of science and trying to insinuate they are both equally flawed.

The historicity miracle working God-man Jesus wasn't seriously questioned until the 18th century.

Also if you really read Drews and Robertson they didn't exactly throw the human Jesus out with the mystical bathwater and yet both side keep misrepresenting them that way.

Then you have the Pro-HJ side's annoying habit of slapping the "Christ Myth" label on things that do NOT throw the human Jesus out with the mystical bathwater (Frazer and GA Wells from Jesus Myth on)

Let's not forget the definitions of "Christ Myth" thrown out over the years that are NOT either 'Jesus started as a myth' or 'Jesus never was a human being'.

 

[Joey McGee]

You are laughing at yourself.

Carrier an historian who argues Jesus most likely was MYTHICAL is evidence that there is a consensus that Jesus existed!!!!

What absolute absurdity!!!

Carrier is evidence which suggest that there is NO consensus among secular historians.

If you carefully read Carrier's article, it is clear that he agrees with Fincke that there is a secular consensus for a historical jesus amongst historians. Crystal clear. It kind of baffles the mind that you still can't understand this. I haven't completely given up on you yet...

 

[Joey McGee]

The historicity miracle working God-man Jesus wasn't seriously questioned until the 18th century.

This means absolutely nothing when talking about the current state of research in the 21st century.

Also if you really read Drews and Robertson they didn't exactly throw the human Jesus out with the mystical bathwater and yet both side keep misrepresenting them that way.

Then you have the Pro-HJ side's annoying habit of slapping the "Christ Myth" label on things that do NOT throw the human Jesus out with the mystical bathwater (Frazer and GA Wells from Jesus Myth on)

Let's not forget the definitions of "Christ Myth" thrown out over the years that are NOT either 'Jesus started as a myth' or 'Jesus never was a human being'.

Well of course there is a spectrum of different and conflicting positions. The conspiracy theory side as you agree is bonkers, as is the new age side, which is another flavor of conspiracy theory I guess. What is most important, I feel, is that the strategy of "exposing" the "fraud" to put a dent in the religious grip on society is a non-starter. This point I think I have made very well here. And we have seen that the most "animated" proponents of the opposite sentiment clearly have some motivated reasoning and emotional bias going on that is really not helping anything along. It's on the same level of starting a revolution with movies like Zeitgeist

 

[maximara]

This means absolutely nothing when talking about the current state of research in the 21st century.

Except both sides keep trotting out stuff from the 18th century as if it is brand spanking new. And it is not just the amateur hour that does it. I mean WHY in the name of sanity would anyone trying to show Jesus existed as a human being present Thallos as evidence?

Well of course there is a spectrum of different and conflicting positions. The conspiracy theory side as you agree is bonkers, as is the new age side, which is another flavor of conspiracy theory I guess. What is most important, I feel, is that the strategy of "exposing" the "fraud" to put a dent in the religious grip on society is a non-starter. This point I think I have made very well here. And we have seen that the most "animated" proponents of the opposite sentiment clearly have some motivated reasoning and emotional bias going on that is really not helping anything along. It's on the same level of starting a revolution with movies like Zeitgeist

It is things like Zeitgeist that makes the more down to Earth Christ Mythers just

But then you learn that the rest of the movie is just as off the wall bonkers (or perhaps a little more...if that is even possible)

Resmburg is one of the few writers that took on the entire Christ Myth theory and despite the many things that have changed the points he raised about the quality of the evidence regarding Jesus in 1909 STILL holds true today.

While he didn't subscribe to the 'Jesus didn't exist' part he did shows that even if Jesus did exist as a human being odds are the Gospels don't tell us anything about the man.

We can't exclude the idea that Paul latched on the name of some obscure teacher in his vision and spread the word until he finally bumped into the handful of followers of said obscure teacher. He and said followers fade from history and elaborate stories are woven about them. The same is true of the obscure teacher with element from various other would be messiahs used and altered to fit the time of Paul's vision with the version that we knoew as Mark becoming the most popular and becoming the go to for all other versions.

 

[dejudge]

I quoted the part in your very own link that CONTRADICTS you, Dejudge. Here it is again

What nonsense.

I quoted a DICTIONARY definition .

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

You pick one definition and ignore the other even after it's been pointed out to you. That is a dishonest way to discuss a topic.

Again, what illogical absurd nonsense!!!


When a word has several meanings ONE can be chosen that supports my argument.

There is NO consensus that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father by Atheists, Christians, Fundamentalists, Jews, Agnostics, Historians in any country of the WHOLE World.

 

[Leumas]

... What is most important, I feel, is that the strategy of "exposing" the "fraud" to put a dent in the religious grip on society is a non-starter.....

And why are you so hell bent on putting a dent in those attempts to put a dent in the religious grip?

Why this indefatigable laboring to deflate those who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip by incessantly ridiculing and deriding with such vitriol and so many ad hominems?

If it is such a non-starter.... why are you fighting against it with such acerbic adamancy?

Why don't you just leave them alone.... or better yet... why don't you instead offer constructive suggestions on how their attempts at putting a dent in the religious grip might be improved and made more effective?

Ridiculing and abusing the people who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip is not helping at all in putting a dent in the religious grip?

Why don't you start your own denting strategy and leave others to do their own denting without helping the religious against them?

 

[Joey McGee]

And why are you so hell bent on putting a dent in those attempts to put a dent in the religious grip?

I'm trying to help you, to stop you from wasting your time, to stop you from energizing believers into a large backfire effect. Did you not read the Fincke article we have been discussing? You could answer your own questions...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

Why this indefatigable laboring to deflate those who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip by incessantly ridiculing and deriding with such vitriol and so many ad hominems?

Don't give yourself that much credit, I have hardly put any effort into it at all.. Personally I think it's obvious that you don't have a serious argument, don't have a serious chance at success, in academia or in influencing the religionists with this angle. I think most people agree with me, even Carrier agrees with this.

If it is such a non-starter.... why are you fighting against it with such acerbic adamancy?

Again, I'm not personally upset by it at all. It doesn't bother me. We're having a discussion. Yes, I think it's bonkers and a waste of time and people clearly have their own personal issues they are using this as an outlet for, much the same way unhinged people are attracted to any conspiracy theory. But, I'm not trying to stop you from anything other than wasting your time, or making a fool of yourself.

Why don't you just leave them alone.... or better yet... why don't you instead offer constructive suggestions on how their attempts at putting a dent in the religious grip might be improved and made more effective?

Well I think I did, what makes people let go of religion is better answers to explain reality, and better ways of discovering those answers, science and reason vs. revelation and mysticism, science can explain why people are attracted to mysticism and revelation, and can loosen their grip in the mind. It can explain why the human brain and the balanced ecosystem of the planet and the complexity of the cell can exist without divinity in the universe. This is a better thing to concentrate on then trying to prove that the history of religion is rife with fraud.

Ridiculing and abusing the people who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip is not helping at all in putting a dent in the religious grip?

Yes it is incredibly juvenile to think that a) Anyone will really be convinced by these hazy arguments over ancient texts b) the average person would actually be interested in them.

Why don't you start your own denting strategy and leave others to do their own denting without helping the religious against them?

Jesus **** how am I helping the religious? And you really want to be beyond criticism? Does it hurt your feelings?

 

[dejudge]

If you carefully read Carrier's article, it is clear that he agrees with Fincke that there is a secular consensus for a historical jesus amongst historians. Crystal clear. It kind of baffles the mind that you still can't understand this. I haven't completely given up on you yet...

I am extremely happy that you mention Fincke.

You are unwittingly showing that your claim of a consensus among secular historians is a product of Chinese Whispers.


Carrier an historian who argues that Jesus was most likely MYTHICAL claims there is a consensus by quoting Fincke.

Fincke is AGNOSTIC about an HJ but claims there is a secular consensus.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

......I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,”

Carrier's Myth argument, Fincke Agnosticism and the admittance there are other Agnostics who are AFRAID to admit it are evidence that there is NO consensus among secular historians but that they are merely repeating Chinese Whispers.

So, far you have not presented a secular historian who have conceded that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a mere man with a human father.

When did secular historians concede Jesus was a mere man with a human father??


There is NO and NEVER was a consensus among secular historians that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.

 

[Joey McGee]

You still don't understand the meaning of the word consensus. Is English your first language?

 

[Leumas]

I'm trying to help you, to stop you from wasting your time, to stop you from energizing believers into a large backfire effect. Did you not read the Fincke article we have been discussing? You could answer your own questions...

Yet here you are wasting time trying to stop people from wasting time by ridiculing and maligning them and hurling foul epithets at them.

Why do you think it's more important to waste your time trying to stop people from wasting their time trying to put a dent in the religious grip?

Could it be that your incessant efforts at wasting your time trying to tell people to stop wasting their time is because you do not think that their time and thus not yours too is being wasted and that your attempts at ridiculing and maligning and dissuading them from denting the religious grip are so adamant precisely because their denting is in fact working?

Don't give yourself that much credit, I have hardly put any effort into it at all..

Aha... yes...yes... I can see that...

Personally I think it's obvious that you don't have a serious argument, don't have a serious chance at success, in academia or in influencing the religionists with this angle. I think most people agree with me, even Carrier agrees with this.

If you keep telling yourself that you might eventually actually convince yourself of it... let's hope you do because then you will stop this acerbic adamancy of trying to dissuade people from trying to put a dent in the religious grip.

Again, I'm not personally upset by it at all. It doesn't bother me.

Aha... I can see that... that is why you keep using such foul epithets.

We're having a discussion. Yes, I think it's bonkers and a waste of time and people clearly have their own personal issues they are using this as an outlet for, much the same way unhinged people are attracted to any conspiracy theory.

Aha... you are not upset at all... it obviously is not bothering you at all!!!

Maybe you believe it but your actions and vitriol bespeak otherwise!!

But, I'm not trying to stop you from anything other than wasting your time, or making a fool of yourself.

More foul epithets in an incessant attempt at stopping people from trying to put a dent in the religious grip!

What determination!!!

Well I think I did, what makes people let go of religion is better answers to explain reality, and better ways of discovering those answers, science and reason vs. revelation and mysticism, science can explain why people are attracted to mysticism and revelation, and can loosen their grip in the mind.

I have not seen you offering any assistance to other atheists doing that in other threads... why don't you go and put in some effort there assisting some of those attempts at putting a dent in the religious grip?

All I see is your ridicule and foul epithets being hurled at people trying to put a dent in the religious grip.

It can explain why the human brain and the balanced ecosystem of the planet and the complexity of the cell can exist without divinity in the universe. This is a better thing to concentrate on then trying to prove that the history of religion is rife with fraud.

When you build a house do you use a hammer for every aspect of the construction?

Are you in the habit of only using ONE TOOL for everything you do?

Why not go ahead and do your part in denting the religious grip and leave others who are trying to do their part in their way without wasting your time and their time in telling them that they are wasting their time while at the same time hurling at them such vitriol and hateful epithets?

Yes it is incredibly juvenile to think that a)

I am so glad that you have matured in your attempts at denting the religious grip... so why don't you leave others to try their hands at denting so that they can find out what works and what doesn't and mature while they are doing it.

Why are you trying so hard to sabotage their maturation process?

Why don't you just stop wasting your time and go employ it in the avenues you think work better and deploy all your vitriol and wrangling and squabbling in denting the religious grip instead of in denting the attempts at denting it?

Anyone will really be convinced by these hazy arguments over ancient texts b) the average person would actually be interested in them.Jesus **** how am I helping the religious? And you really want to be beyond criticism? Does it hurt your feelings?

Again with the adamant maligning of people who are only trying to dent the religious grip.

I wonder why you are so adamant at stopping those attempts at denting the religious grip?

 

[Craig B]

And why are you so hell bent on putting a dent in those attempts to put a dent in the religious grip?

Why this indefatigable laboring to deflate those who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip by incessantly ridiculing and deriding with such vitriol and so many ad hominems?

If it is such a non-starter.... why are you fighting against it with such acerbic adamancy?

Why don't you just leave them alone.... or better yet... why don't you instead offer constructive suggestions on how their attempts at putting a dent in the religious grip might be improved and made more effective?

Ridiculing and abusing the people who are trying to put a dent in the religious grip is not helping at all in putting a dent in the religious grip?

Why don't you start your own denting strategy and leave others to do their own denting without helping the religious against them?

That is remarkably revealing. So much so that I don't want to make further comment on it.

 

[Joey McGee]

wasting your time

I'm curious as to how people think about these issues, and mildly amused as to how they respond to criticism of them. I have regretted my participation in this thread, that's without question. However, I'm always curious at the pathology of social hysteria, it's a lifelong research project.

precisely because their denting is in fact working[/B]?

Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to get through the day.

Maybe you believe it but your actions and vitriol bespeak otherwise!!

So you have convinced yourself that I'm simply angry at the success of the Christ myth proponents? Why is it impossible that I simply think it's funny?

More foul epithets in an incessant attempt at stopping people from trying to put a dent in the religious grip!

It's a sad childish narrative... no, your critics, like Fincke, like Carrier, like many others, simply see this angle as a giant waste of time compared to other angles.

I have not seen you offering any assistance to other atheists doing that in other threads...

So now you're questioning my credibility as rationalist activist because I criticize your angle? That's a little sad.

All I see is your ridicule and foul epithets being hurled at people trying to put a dent in the religious grip.

That's because you can't take a joke, criticism or anyone seriously that has the gall to question the validity of your mission in life.

When you build a house do you use a hammer for every aspect of the construction?

I don't use a hammer to cut wood. While it's possible, it's very messy, time consuming, and the result is unsatisfactory. Trying to debunk religion by inventing conspiracy theories and trying to cast doubt on a historical narrative with an argument style that is more defense attorney than scholarly, this is a terrible way to spend your life.

I wonder why you are so adamant at stopping those attempts at denting the religious grip?

Carrier: "criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith."

I guess you didn't carefully read Fincke's article, or else you wouldn't be asking me these asinine questions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

Why are you so incredibly verbose? Why do you repeat the same thing over and over again? Those are good questions.

 

[Belz...]

You pick one definition and ignore the other even after it's been pointed out to you. That is a dishonest way to discuss a topic.

When a word has several meanings ONE can be chosen that supports my argument.

And you ignore the meaning that doesn't?

Someone else uses the word and they have to use the definition you want?

You're a parody. You can't possibly believe any of the nonsense you post here.

 

[Leumas]

<snip loads of rubbish and more foul epithets and maligning ad hominems>

I'll have you know that I personally am neither a mythicist nor a historicist.

I in fact would love to have it be true that Jesus was a real live person because then he would have been nothing but one or all of these alternatives

• a mountebank and charlatan
• a great fool of a coward
• a blaspheming pathetically deluded moron
• the 1st century CE version of Osama Bin Laden
• the 1st century CE equivalent of David Koresh or Jim Jones

And as such I am sure that would be a much bigger dent in the religious grip than any mythical claptrap Jesus the fraudulent fabrication of hucksters and believed by ignorant sheep in a benighted era and enforced upon humanity by the sword of brigands and pillagers to replace numerous similar but indigenous fairy tales and mythical fables of the remnants of vanquished and defeated cultures in the wake of human villainy and folly.

Just like Tacitus said (with a slight rephrasing), Christianity was (and still is) nothing but the most mischievous superstition and their hideous and shameful evil beliefs were hateful of humanity.

But despite my wishful thinking that Christians would start to realize that their Jesus was nothing but a pathetic nothing of a great fool or a vile heinous zealous jihadist terrorist or a huckstering cultist, I am still willing to entertain the very high possibility that he was nothing but what the mythecists postulate he was ... a protagonist in a stupid retarded fairy tale fabricated with the express purpose of huckstering and bamboozling.

Instead of wasting so much time telling us that you have no desire to waste your time except in trying to stop us from wasting our time.... can you answer the following questions:

I go to buy a used car that I saw advertised in the local newspaper and I examine it and find that it is not in the condition it was claimed to be in.

Moreover, the guy trying to sell it to me does not have an original title deed but only a copy of it and a badly made one at that.

Additionally, when I ask him for an I.D. he gives me one with a name that does not match what is clearly his ethnicity from looking at him.

Furthermore, when I ask him to come with me to the DMV to register the sale he comes up with some excuse.

Am I right in suspecting something fishy (pun intended)?

Should I go ahead and just trust and buy the car and pay for it?

Am I right to CHANGE MY MIND and walk away?

Who is the INSANE one

the one who has faith that the seller is on the up and up because MOST people who sell their cars are honest people?​

or

the one who drops the whole thing and walks away even if he does not have a 100% proof that it is not a fraud?​

 

[Joey McGee]

Wow.

I have to just move on from here, sorry, this is too strange and senseless.