Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

It is your statement that is fallacious. It is obvious nonsense.

The evidence presented was for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

In fact, No recovered writings of antiquity dated to the 1st century mentions any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Please stop wasting time.

.
You said that back on page 1, and 2, and 3, and.... talk about wasting time.
Move the needle, it's stuck!

What a big lie.

I just looked at page 1, and 2, and 3.

 

[tsig]

I think that generally you and I are on the same wavelength during most of these discussions, but even I don't get what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase?

Some posters just want the discussion to go in circles and I'm tired of the merry go round.

"This is where we came in" was a widely used phrase at the drive in to say that the movies had come around to where you had seen then before.

Drive ins showed two films twice.

 

[Belz...]

What a big lie.

It's no lie that you keep repeating the same ineffective arguments.

 

[Belz...]

Some posters just want the discussion to go in circles and I'm tired of the merry go round.

"This is where we came in" was a widely used phrase at the drive in to say that the movies had come around to where you had seen then before.

Drive ins showed two films twice.

It's interesting to see you bow out just as you were asked what you specifically wanted to discuss.

 

[pipelineaudio]

That is completely false. It is simple nonsense. You have obviously not read the material. If you reject the arguments, say why. But don't say they haven't ever been made in any of the threads.

So without handwaving me away to read the fifteen other threads, or some paper somewhere, can you simply summarize one of these arguments that doesnt rely on the bible?

 

[Belz...]

So without handwaving me away to read the fifteen other threads, or some paper somewhere, can you simply summarize one of these arguments that doesnt rely on the bible?

Can I ask you a serious question: how many times should one summarize these arguments when a poster begins to post in this thread and makes this request ?

Maybe the HJ crowd should make a summary, and then always link to that post.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I figure once would be a good start

 

[dejudge]

It's no lie that you keep repeating the same ineffective arguments.

What a big lie.


You have already made your HJ argument completely unconvincing and ineffective when you admitted you never claimed to have had evidence for an HJ.

 

[Craig B]

So without handwaving me away to read the fifteen other threads, or some paper somewhere, can you simply summarize one of these arguments that doesnt rely on the bible?

You previously stated that

If anyone presented any actual arguments for the HJ it would be the first time in all of these threads

burden of proof megafail

But in fact what you are stating really is that you don't accept critical analysis of gospel texts. That's fine, but it isn't the same as saying that no arguments have been presented. So say what you mean. If you object to this analysis, say why.

Anyway don't be so arrogant. You can look up the arguments, and I'm summarising nothing. Do it yourself.

 

[Belz...]

What a big lie.

What a big lie.

You have already made your HJ argument completely unconvincing and ineffective when you admitted you never claimed to have had evidence for an HJ.

And you admitted that there is plenty of evidence.

You have no clue what you are arguing.

 

[The Norseman]

Some posters just want the discussion to go in circles and I'm tired of the merry go round.

"This is where we came in" was a widely used phrase at the drive in to say that the movies had come around to where you had seen then before.

Drive ins showed two films twice.

Thanks for the clarification. I am old enough to remember drive-ins though I was never interested in going to one. Funny thing, that.

 

[Belz...]

I figure once would be a good start

Have you read the entire thread ? I ask because I know it's been done at least once already, so you are either ignorant of the facts you seem to speak with authority about, or you are not being honest.

But you also didn't answer my question, prefering to post a one-liner. I guess this argues for the latter option.

 

[The Norseman]

Can I ask you a serious question: how many times should one summarize these arguments when a poster begins to post in this thread and makes this request ?

Maybe the HJ crowd should make a summary, and then always link to that post.

I think that's a splendid idea; one which Piggy wanted to do (according to my understanding of his last posts in a previous thread) but, for whatever reason, did not do so. I say this with no blame or rancor but just stating a fact.

I also recognize that Stone did link to about a half-dozen of his posts, claiming to hold the evidence, but once I read them, I didn't see anything about evidence. Perhaps someone can correct me on this specific item.

 

[The Norseman]

Have you read the entire thread ? I ask because I know it's been done at least once already, so you are either ignorant of the facts you seem to speak with authority about, or you are not being honest.

But you also didn't answer my question, prefering to post a one-liner. I guess this argues for the latter option.

Belz... please. Could you just link to that information once again? That would halt any further complaints by at least one member and perhaps more. I say this knowing that it would not stop some other posters' complaints, to be sure.

 

[pakeha]

I think that's a splendid idea; one which Piggy wanted to do (according to my understanding of his last posts in a previous thread) but, for whatever reason, did not do so. I say this with no blame or rancor but just stating a fact.

I also recognize that Stone did link to about a half-dozen of his posts, claiming to hold the evidence, but once I read them, I didn't see anything about evidence. Perhaps someone can correct me on this specific item.

Ah, yes.
I remember that series of posts Piggy gave us.
Chockfull of information, but no evidence of the HJ, after all.

 

[tsig]

Some posters just want the discussion to go in circles and I'm tired of the merry go round.

"This is where we came in" was a widely used phrase at the drive in to say that the movies had come around to where you had seen then before.

Drive ins showed two films twice.

It's interesting to see you bow out just as you were asked what you specifically wanted to discuss.

Q. E. D.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Have you read the entire thread ? I ask because I know it's been done at least once already, so you are either ignorant of the facts you seem to speak with authority about, or you are not being honest.

But you also didn't answer my question, prefering to post a one-liner. I guess this argues for the latter option.

Yes Ive read this thread and the other ones, at first being pretty sure there was some sort of an HJ, but more and more doubting it highly.

SO for all you wrote, could you offer one of those evidences that doesnt rely on the bible?

 

[Craig B]

Yes Ive read this thread and the other ones, at first being pretty sure there was some sort of an HJ, but more and more doubting it highly.

SO for all you wrote, could you offer one of those evidences that doesnt rely on the bible?

None of them "relies" on the bible. They are derived from analysis of the text. The material in the gospels contains plausible evidence, but not because the bible is "reliable". Do you understand that? I think you do as do the others who eternally repeat this canard. And when did you read the thread? In the last half hour? Before that you were asking me to summarise it for you.

As you put it

So without handwaving me away to read the fifteen other threads, or some paper somewhere, can you simply summarize one of these arguments that doesnt rely on the bible?

You're an admirably quick reader of fifteen threads!

 

[Belz...]

Belz... please. Could you just link to that information once again? That would halt any further complaints by at least one member and perhaps more.

No, it wouldn't. That's my entire point. Craig and Brainache are better suited to hunt down the information and link to it than I, anyway.

 

[Belz...]

Yes Ive read this thread and the other ones, at first being pretty sure there was some sort of an HJ, but more and more doubting it highly.

I wobbled between one position and the other myself. But it would be untrue to say that no evidence has been presented for HJ. You can call the evidence unconvincing, and I'll probably agree with you on a lot of points. But to say _none_ has been presented is patently untrue. However it seems I missed an important detail:

SO for all you wrote, could you offer one of those evidences that doesnt rely on the bible?

Bolding mine.

Well, Craig has answered you already, but what do you mean by "rely" ? I'll remind you that the bibble was cobbled together from previous books, which were not written at the same time, by the same people, or with the same purpose. At that they are, in a loose sense, semi-independant. Are they trustworthy ? Not in the least. But if you had really followed these threads, you'd know by now that the letter of the bible is not particularily important as evidence for HJ: it's rather the fact that the text is there, in that form, within its historical context, that makes the argument for HJ slightly believable. The problem with MJ is that, aside from speculation, it doesn't even have that weak evidence.

Of course, if you don't care which version of history is correct, you can be an agnostic about this. But if, like me, you'd like at least a tentative picture of what happened, then one must reach some sort of conclusion, and weak evidence trumps no evidence at all.

All that has been presented over and over. If you read this thread and the others, you must know this. Otherwise, I respectfully submit that you might have reached a conclusion that is preventing you from further thinking about this topic dispassionately.