ARCHIVE: Knight and Lion from TOL are Back to Answer Your Questions
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
allsmiles said:
Apparently, you are not as up to speed on the Jesus Myth and the rebuttals as you contend. All of Doherty's assertions and hypothesis have been more than adqequately dealt with, of course that is not just MHO. but also the not so humble opinion of several other scholars in the field.
Regarding historical evidence: I assume you are in agreement with Doherty that the 4 gospels and Acts, can not be used. The Epistles since they don't mention Joseph, or Mary, or Nazerath or Bethlehem et al: can therefore only be used to strengthen the myth. The numerous mentions of His crucifixion and Resurrection in them are explained away, by the Myth hypothesis.
The secular writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, are entirely suspect { where they mention Jesus} and can not be used either.
A, 1. signed and dated confession by Pilate would be acceptable, a, 2. history of every itinerant preacher of that era by a Roman or Judean historian that would thus include Jesus, or 3. graven images of Jesus, dated to the 1st century, which BTW our faith prohibits, would also be acceptable!
We have no proof according to your criteria, therefore, I fold my hand and you win. Thanks for playing.
Now does anyone else want to play with Allsmiles "stacked" deck.
P.S. Please hurry up and pos rep all your pagan buddies so that you can neg rep me for the third time in two days, for simply listing some web sites and drawing my own conclusions. I consider it a badge of honor. As my non mythological Lord and Saviour said. "If they hated me, they will hate you as well."
Last edited:
allsmiles
New member
Sorry to kick up a dead horse folks, but...
Opinions on the adequacy of a rebuttal are in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is based on how you must view the JM. Any concession on your part, even to concede that Doherty is possibly right, would be a disaster for you. You folks make this game all or nothing. I could be wrong about you.
I can't remember Doherty saying that the four canonical gospels can't or shouldn't be used, it might be at his website or I may have overlooked it in his book on the subject, The Jesus Puzzle. Have you read it?
I don't think I'd agree that the gospels shouldn't be used. The basis for the JM argument are Christian documents, to exclude any is unnecessary and would defeat the argument, perhaps not in its entirety, but it would contradict the purpose. I think the gospels could, potentially be of just as much use as the epistles in the JM argument.
They are.
This isn't my criteria, and whether you pass or fail shouldn't matter. The fact is I've done nothing but request what you folks consider to be evidence for the physical existence of Jesus in our historical timeline and I've never made any promise of a possibility of concession on my part. Why you can't even provide what you consider "good enough" and throw your concern for my opinion to the wind is incredibly telling.
You're not even playing with your own deck Jeremiah so whatever.
Yeah yeah yeah, cry me a river. You're not doing your non-mythological Lord and Savior much good when you can't rebut a single pagan's desires to see why you have so much stock in his existence in our historical timeline. Faith might be good enough for you, but it ain't for me :nono:
You should be tripping over the evidence, you should have buried me in it by now.
I have a simple answer:
You and your compatriots have failed (miserably and consistently) to produce evidence, regardless of my opinion of it, because there is no evidence to present. Either that or you're completely ignorant.
Neg rep is on the way.
File a complaint with the management.
jeremiah said:
Opinions on the adequacy of a rebuttal are in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is based on how you must view the JM. Any concession on your part, even to concede that Doherty is possibly right, would be a disaster for you. You folks make this game all or nothing. I could be wrong about you.
I can't remember Doherty saying that the four canonical gospels can't or shouldn't be used, it might be at his website or I may have overlooked it in his book on the subject, The Jesus Puzzle. Have you read it?
I don't think I'd agree that the gospels shouldn't be used. The basis for the JM argument are Christian documents, to exclude any is unnecessary and would defeat the argument, perhaps not in its entirety, but it would contradict the purpose. I think the gospels could, potentially be of just as much use as the epistles in the JM argument.
They are.
This isn't my criteria, and whether you pass or fail shouldn't matter. The fact is I've done nothing but request what you folks consider to be evidence for the physical existence of Jesus in our historical timeline and I've never made any promise of a possibility of concession on my part. Why you can't even provide what you consider "good enough" and throw your concern for my opinion to the wind is incredibly telling.
You're not even playing with your own deck Jeremiah so whatever.
Yeah yeah yeah, cry me a river. You're not doing your non-mythological Lord and Savior much good when you can't rebut a single pagan's desires to see why you have so much stock in his existence in our historical timeline. Faith might be good enough for you, but it ain't for me :nono:
You should be tripping over the evidence, you should have buried me in it by now.
I have a simple answer:
You and your compatriots have failed (miserably and consistently) to produce evidence, regardless of my opinion of it, because there is no evidence to present. Either that or you're completely ignorant.
Neg rep is on the way.
File a complaint with the management.
allsmiles
New member
Toast said:
What a ridiculous request to make in the first place.
Knight couldn't keep on topic and got fed up with me repeating my singular question (is belief in Christ evidence of his existence?). He did nothing but change his direction, change his focus, attempt to get me off track, attempt to sidetrack the thread with his ludicrous notions of defining criteria, obfuscate, mock, and eventually cop out and walk away when he got it through his thick skull that his sophistic tactics weren't working on me.
A stupid question like this is predictable, and it shows just how incapable you are when it comes to defending your "faith" out of the realm of fantasy/theology and in the realm of the real world.
Don't waste your time with any more pot shots like this.
Come back when you discover, for the first time, what evidence the Christian community relies upon for the physical existence of your alleged Lord and Savior in our historical timeline.
Forget about what I'll say about it.
Grow a pair and make a stand.
eisenreich
New member
Perhaps they aren't familiar with the writings of Peter..allsmiles said:
But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. -- 1 Peter 3:15
eisenreich
New member
I suppose that question could be divided into two parts: 1. did Peter write the epistles attributed to him and 2. did Peter, the disciple of Jesus, exist?Shimei said:
1. Considering the cottage industry of pseudepigraphical/pseudonymous books being written in and around the first century, <wiki>most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. It contains about thirty-five references to the Old Testament, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle. The Septuagint was a Greek translation created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form. If the epistle is taken to be pseudepigraphal, the date is usually cited as between 70-90 by scholars like Raymond E. Brown and Bart D. Ehrman, while a small number of scholars argue for an even later date.</wiki>
2. Since I haven't yet read Doherty's mythicist argument, perhaps AS can jump in on where Doherty stands on the existence of the followers of Jesus. A case could easily be made that the twelve disciples of Jesus were allegory and represented the new twelve tribes of Israel. The twelve could also stand for the twelve signs of the zodiac, as there are various parallels between the story of Jesus and astrology . I'll have to do a bit more research about the sources outside of the gospels that mention Simon Peter. His date of birth, like Jesus is unknown, and the description and date of his death (CE 64 by cruxifiction) are known only through Christian tradition.
Shimie, what are the reasons you believe that Jesus Christ was a real person? Think of the best criteria a historian would use to determine the validity of a person's life and compare that to the evidence of what remains about Jesus. Judging by the way this thread has gone, I'm not expecting you to seriously answer (surprise me!).
allsmiles
New member
Let's not stray from the subject, that being Jesus.
It's not the Peter Myth argument, it's not the Caesar Augustus Myth argument, it's the Jesus Myth argument.
The best all Christians here (so far) have been able to do in "retaliation" to the JM argument is to change the subject and I don't stand for that. Tackling the argument head on is a catastrophe waiting to happen for them, that's why they don't and won't do it. The best they have is to introduce extraneous and potentially confusing subject matter into the "discussion" and I don't play that game.
BTW, I highly recommend that any self-respecting skeptic who participates not play that game either. It's deliberately deceptive. It's willful ignorance, Eisenreich, you and I have talked about that in PMs. This is not a game.
It's not the Peter Myth argument, it's not the Caesar Augustus Myth argument, it's the Jesus Myth argument.
The best all Christians here (so far) have been able to do in "retaliation" to the JM argument is to change the subject and I don't stand for that. Tackling the argument head on is a catastrophe waiting to happen for them, that's why they don't and won't do it. The best they have is to introduce extraneous and potentially confusing subject matter into the "discussion" and I don't play that game.
BTW, I highly recommend that any self-respecting skeptic who participates not play that game either. It's deliberately deceptive. It's willful ignorance, Eisenreich, you and I have talked about that in PMs. This is not a game.
allsmiles
New member
Let's start here: you be a man and make with the evidence.
Let's start here: you be a man and make with the evidence.
Folks, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Extraneous subject matter. This is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the obvious, that being the incapability of a single Christian on this website to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for the physical existence of their alleged Lord and Savior in our historical timeline.
Look but don't touch fellas. This is about as blatant and ridiculous as it gets.
Let's start here: you be a man and make with the evidence.
Shimei said:
Folks, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Extraneous subject matter. This is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the obvious, that being the incapability of a single Christian on this website to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for the physical existence of their alleged Lord and Savior in our historical timeline.
Look but don't touch fellas. This is about as blatant and ridiculous as it gets.
Last edited:
allsmiles said:
Right allsmiles. Starting with the country where the man was born. Did the place ever even exist? Why would anyone ever ask that?
Did the writers of the gospels who mentioned Him ever exist? How silly to wonder.
Did people at the time of Christ who mentioned Christ in some way exist? Who cares!
eisenreich
New member
AS, do you feel as though you're talking to a few 12 year-old ADD'ers off their meds..? What is the best evidence you have that your savior, Jesus Christ, was born, lived, breathed, walked, and talked? The more you stall, the worse your case.. If someone asked me, "Well if you're so confident..What's 2+2??". I would say "4, obviously." I would not answer their question with another question, which is all you seem capable of doing.Shimei said:
arty:- Status