Your statement is illogical. You cannot know with any certainty that my arguments are not causing anyone to doubt the existence of HJ.
It is most amusing how those who argue for an HJ EXPOSE their lack of logic.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
Your statement is illogical. You cannot know with any certainty that my arguments are not causing anyone to doubt the existence of HJ.
It is most amusing how those who argue for an HJ EXPOSE their lack of logic.
Belz...
Fiend God
The word you're looking for is "chuckles", actually.
You are the same Belz who admitted "everyone has agreed the evidence for an HJ is TERRIBLE".
You make me chuckle a lot.
Not for much longer. As Christians become fewer over the next century or so, Jesus's own historical importance will inevitably be restricted more and more to his original ideas, philosophical and ethical -- very much like those of a Pythagoras or a Socrates or a Plato -- rather than to his "hollywood-style" importance as some sort of "hero" in a fairy tale. Christians -- especially fundies -- often seem most eager of all to pretend that Jesus's philosophical ideas (putting aside all the magic woo that they just love) have no importance -- to muffle them, in fact, with extreme prejudice.
But in fact those ideas have had great importance, just as much importance as those of any of the three philosophers already cited here. Over a thousand years later, James Naylor, Adin Ballou, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would never have evolved the way they did absent the potent ideas that Jesus and his early followers (but only his early followers
) popularized. Some of those ideas had already been advanced previously but were now given new momentum by Jesus; some have no known precedent at all ("Love your enemies[!]"). But the bottom line is that it is the philosophical/ethical ideas that Jesus gave a fresh new impetus to that constitute his most lasting legacy. So separating Jesus from those ideas is just as illogical as separating a Pythagoras or a Socrates or a Plato from theirs.The more that humanity advances in the 3rd millennium, the more those ideas will bulk and the less relevant Jesus himself will be as a person (as with a Pythagoras or a Socrates). At a certain point, humanity will no longer view those Jesus ethics as over-idealistic at all; they will seem utterly pragmatic -- if humanity survives in the long term at all, that is. The smaller our global village becomes, the more it will be apparent that the so-called "hard-headedness" of today's "pragmatism" is the surest recipe for humanity's total self-annihilation. Failure to apply the ethical Jesus ideas once this globe is even smaller than today, culturally, technologically and psychologically, ensures our self-annihilation. That will be the point when we have our most critical choice: total self-annihilation or cooperation. If humanity survives that choice, it will be solely because it will have made the choice to apply Jesus ethics. That will be the point at which, finally, Jesus as a person will become effectively irrelevant, with his ideas instead becoming as indispensable to humanity's survival as the ideas of Newton, the ideas of Einstein, the ideas of Heisenberg, the ideas of Gandhi, the ideas of Pythagoras, the ideas of Euclid, the ideas of Darwin, the ideas of Galileo, the ideas of Copernicus, the ideas of Franklin, the ideas of Jefferson, the ideas of Leukippos, the ideas of Solon, the ideas of Edison, or the ideas of Socrates.
Stone
Actually, his postings on RatSkep are suddenly being treated with the utmost seriousness. Bizarre, but true. That shows how extremist that big RatSkep thread has become.
Stone
Your post makes no logical sense.
Mankind will ultimately REJECT the Entire NT as worthless anti-Jewish propaganda and was of no real value for the development of mankind.
In fact, the stories of Jesus, if he was really a man, show that Jesus cult managed to deceive mankind for hundreds of years.
This should never ever be allowed to happen again.
These are the so-called words of Jesus [actually God in gJohn].
John 8:44 NAS
Luke 11:29 KJV
Matthew 12:34 KJV
Mark 4
The Jesus story is about to be obsolete and irrelevant to the progress of mankind.
Never again must mythology be accepted as history--Never.
Last edited:
(Since the mods allow emoticons like these to be put up, they can hardly blame posters for using them.)Stone
Belz...
Fiend God
And you're the same Dejudge who fails to understand what that means.
Not concern exactly...
Must I? I respond when I want to. Your arguments are so outrageously moronic that it amuses me to point that out.
Why does this excite you? Everybody knows that the HJ is just a plausible explanation.
No one has come up with a better explanation. The one you (fail to) offer isn't it.
The unknown consensus sounds very zen...
I missed that announcement.
What is a "Chinese Whispers" argument?
Indeed.
He can know that. If your arguments have persuaded anyone here, it is away from the MJ idea.
In fact I think in Belz... case you were the tipping point that made him decide 60-40 in favour of HJ.
Well done.
Giggles, snorts and chortles, would also work.
It isn't an "admission" to point out the obvious.
Now that is bizarre.
I won't discuss that here, because it will just get sent to AAH. The Mods don't like us to trash talk other fora.
He sure is.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,108
More like amusement.
dejudge said:
You are the same Belz who admitted "the evidence for HJ is very weak.
Tell us what you mean? You don't have a dictionary??
The evidence for HJ is TERRIBLE!!
The evidence for HJ is very weak!!
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes and you keep forgetting what that means.
Stunned amazement?
Dumbfounded shock?
Sheer awe?
Incredulous fascination?
Morbid curiosity?
Sheer bloody mindedness?
I can't decide.
David Mo
Philosopher
But in fact those ideas have had great importance, just as much importance as those of any of the three philosophers already cited here. Over a thousand years later, James Naylor, Adin Ballou, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would never have evolved the way they did absent the potent ideas that Jesus and his early followers (but only his early followers
We do not know what ideas are that Jesus had. In the process of further handling many ideas were attributed to him that actually were of his disciples. There is no way of knowing what came of the historical Jesus. At most we can distinguish some sayings that sure did not come from him. We don’t separate Jesus from his ideas. It was the job of Paul and the disciples.
Precisely the idea that you quote (`Love your enemies') was a very common sentence in the pagan world (specially in stoicism). It is to say, a lot of ideas attributed to Jesus (or evangelical Jesus -eJ) were actually Hellenistic ideas extracted from Neo-Platonism and Stoicism. Others came from the Jewish world. For example: 'Love your enemies' is a mandate of Qumran with the same idea of eJ: let justice and punishment for Yahveh.
A list of ideas that shook the world is always very subjective. I told IanS in another comment. Your list gives me reason. You quote transforming ideas attributed to individuals who I do not even know and forget others I would mention. In something I agree with you: the eJ has shocked the world for nearly twenty centuries ... imposing a wild monotheism which was dedicated to exterminating all other beliefs that were not own. That is already in some aphorisms of eJ, although who knows if the real Jesus had not been terrified of what was attributed to him. I do not know. But I suppose that an apocalyptic prophet of the first century wouldn’t be a peace-loving lamb.
The eJ' ethics is so contradictory that can survive to almost all. It will be enough to push away the embarrassing mandates and to 'interpret' others. Christianity is making this for millenniums.
Last edited:
OK, well this whole HJ defence has long since become utterly absurd, and 100% devoid on any evidence for Jesus whatsoever.
As far as any battle of Thermopylae is concerned, or ANY such event or person in history, then the answer (which is patently obvious) is -
- if all that you have for that event/person, is the same sort of "evidence" claimed for Jesus, then absolutely you should not accept that the event or person is probably true.
If all that you have as evidence of Thermopylae is -
- self-interested ancient devotional writing from anonymous writers
- who obtained their stories from other unknown anonymous people
- who were thought to have believed that other people in the past had once seen the events
- but where not one of those people is known or ever available to confirm a single thing
- where the event had been anticipated & preached as a certainty of religious prophecy from at least 500-1000 years before
- where numerous parts of the claimed events have been found to be copied from religious prophecy written centuries before
- and where there is not one spec of physical evidence to confirm any part of it
- and where all the most essential claims have turned out to be "proven" fiction
then, yes, you absolutely should not believe that accounts like that are true without reliable credible external evidence which can be checked and confirmed.
You have zero evidence of Jesus. If you cannot produce any evidence then you don’t have a credible case (lots of evidence against the Jesus stories of course).
And the legally valid test of what constitutes evidence admissible as credible, reliable and relevant, is most definitely 100% applicable here (as it is everywhere ... that's why it's established in law).
Cut the crap - produce the evidence.
Have done. You won't read it. And don't be offensive.
You already told me your evidence comes from the bible.
But the bible is not credible as a reliable source of anything about it's anonymous authors 1st century ignorant superstitious religious beliefs taken from their theological trust in the divinity of OT prophecy about a messiah that none of them ever knew in any way at all, but where they nevertheless repeatedly described their believed (but unknown) messiah as an impossible figure of certain fiction on every single page.
Last edited:
Right. Now you've said that, and you may repeat it as often as you please. You reject that evidence. Fine. But that doesn't entitle you to say cut the crap, produce evidence, as if we've said nothing at all. I simply don't accept that "the Bible" is what you say it is. So say, they have produced evidence ... Here in detail is why I reject it. That would be nice.
Belz...
Fiend God
And you've already indicated that you don't want any part of the bible to be true, whatsoever. That's not a very skeptical position to take.
There is NO evidence at all of an historical Jesus in the NT.
You misrepresented the evidence for the Mythological Jesus under the guise that it was evidence for your itinerant preacher who was NOT the Christ and Not born in Bethlehem.
The Jesus in the NT is identified as one who was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin in Bethlehem.
Matthew 1:18 CEB
A Ghost and a Virgin cannot produce an HJ.
Jesus in the NT is also identified as the Logos and God Creator.
John 1
Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the NT.
Luke 2:15 KJV
Those who argue for an HJ are presenting mis-leading information.
They REJECT the evidence that Jesus was God in the NT, Reject that he was born in Bethlehem, Reject all the Miracles, Reject the claim that he walked on the sea, Transfigured and resurrected then still turn around and use the very same REJECTED NT as evidence for THEIR human itinerant preacher when it is NOT.
In the NT, Jesus did NOT have human Flesh. NT Jesus could ONLY be a PHANTOM--appeared to be human but was GOD.
Jesus WALKED on the sea, Transfigured and Resurrected after three days---Human beings cannot do those things
Mark 6:48 NAS
Mark 9:2 NAS
Mark 16:6 NAS
Last edited:
- Status