$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus - Split off

Ebionite
Ebionite's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus - Split off

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Considering I've been studying this subject for 9 years now, and am being peer reviewed for publication for the worlds top academic journal by the worlds leading theologian, I believe I have more authority than you do.

Which publication is "the worlds top academic journal"? Which scholar is "the worlds leading theologian"? When were these things decided, how and by whom?

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
It's interesting how the

It's interesting how the New Testament writings themselves are not given historical worth it seems by the garden-variety skeptic/atheist.

Christianity History

The emergence of Christianity in the Roman Empire was based on many factors, and its spread was an indication of massive social upheaval and changing environments. This article is intended to be a look at the history of the Christian religion, and not an ideological exploration of its mystical foundation. The concept of the historical Jesus Christ and the accuracy of the Bible's 'New Testament' (only from a mystical persepective as its recognition as a historical source is generally well accepted), can be considered irrelevant in understanding Christian history. Despite the written evidence for a historical Jesus, the mystical nature of the story of the Christ has led to a timeless debate. Whether one argues for or against the divinity of Jesus, one cannot argue the impact or rapid spread of the 'Mystery Cult' that eventually came to dominate the western world. Biblical and Theologian Scholars have long debated the ancient texts and Christian theory with Archaeologists or Scholars of alternative thought on this matter. That debate will rage timelessly, but the history of the religion can be examined even without dwelling on its divine beginnings, various historical components or conversely, the roles men may have played in arranging early doctrine.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/christianity-history.php

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: It's

nonbobblehead wrote:

It's interesting how the New Testament writings themselves are not given historical worth it seems by the garden-variety skeptic/atheist.

 

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "historical worth".  If you mean that the Christian religion was a historically significant religion, impacting the lives of billions of people (in varying degrees) and the NT is part of that history, well, I accept that.  If you mean that they deserve being considered historical records/historically accurate, in a word, no. 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, I have to laugh

Honestly, I have to laugh when I see that theists have actually posted responses to this challenge in the belief that their OPINIONS might actually sway you. 

When I read the types of responses that the theists have posted, I can understand why you hold them in such low esteem.

Firstly, you and I both know that there is no CONTEMPORARY evidence of Jesus' existence.  So your challenge is nothing more than a show to make some "not very bright" theists look foolish.

Secondly, even if some documents were discovered tomorrow that stated the author personally knew a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified under Pilate and this same person claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus and carbon dating PROVED beyond a shadow of doubt that the documents dated back to 30AD, for example, all you have to do is say they were a forgery or a hoax or request something corroberative and you've destroyed whatever "credibility" the evidence might have possessed. 

Lastly, even if somebody could provide you with conclusive evidence, you would no more accept it than a hard -core Christian Fundementalist would accept "proof" of evolution, for example. 

Have you not figured out by now that aside from your views, you're no different than them..?? 

To an outside observer, it's so obvious it's actually funny..!!

 

Here's my challenge to you. 

Prove to me that you love somebody - it could be a husband / a wife / mother / father / sister / brother/ etc. But PROVE it - give me an argument that is so conclusive that I can't counter it or come up with an alternative argument.

 I'm sure we all acknowledge that love exists. So PROVE it to me..!! 

Good luck..!!


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof that he existed.
Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely overhaul his movie.
AWARD FOR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE: $666 The evidence must reconcile well with what we know of the time from Roman records and other writers of the day. They must also not conflict with cities, governments, places and people we know who actually lived during the time. Keep in mind the New Testament was written well after Jesus died, and serves as no proof of his existence.
What doesn't count as CONTEMPORARY evidence? Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Those are the most common proofs, none of which were written while Jesus was alive.
ALL RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON RATIONAL RESPONDERS MESSAGE BOARD FOR PUBLIC VIEWING, NONE OTHERS WILL BE CONSIDERED. PASS IT ON!!!

 

This whole challenge is fallacious because you want to put a twenty first century notion of "contemporary" on a period which would consider something written within a hundred years after an event "contemporary." 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Spumoni, that's right and

 Spumoni, that's right and its a very good point. Simple Theist you also made good points. By the way, creation scientist Dr Hovind is offering a million dollars to anyone who can show him evidence for evolution. But the evolutionists are complaining that his criteria for evidence is so high that it is impossible to meet. Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis is offering ten thousand dollars to anyone who can prove the earth revolves around the Sun. As far as I know, no one has met his challenge.

I thought about what Matt said in reference to the Lord of the Rings. I didn't see the full movie. I don't know if he was refering to a book about the movie or the movie itself listing the chronology of Frudo (or however you spell it). But I'll address both issues.

If the movie lists a chronology then within the context of the movie, yes, he would exist. He is part of the story line.

If a book about the movie lists a chronology then obviously it would be mythical, based on the characters of the ficticious movie.

But this would be a false analogy if compaired to Christ because the authors of Lord of the Rings admit its just a story and the movie is ficticious. We never find anyone in the Bible or extra-biblical liturature ever suggesting that Christ was ficticious. In addition, Matthew and Luke specifically link the geneology of Jesus to historical persons (King David, Abraham, etc). The people in Bible times believed those people were indeed historical. So to link a mythical figure to real historical persons makes no sense at all to anyone who has a brain. The Jews have always believed that a real historical Messiah would come. The purpose of Matthew and Luke was to show that Jesus qualified for this title in that he belonged to the Messianic line. If Jesus was a myth, why beat around the bush. Why didn't they just come out and say so? Why even bother linking his geneology to historical persons? In conclusion, why die and suffer for someone who was non-existant? All the apostles, with the exception of John, were killed for their faith that Jesus arose from the dead. Its interesting that other "teachers" of that time were historical, but their followers died out. Yet we are expected to believe that a mythical figure had the impetus to generate the kind of movement necessary to launch the greatest religion the world has ever seen? If he was a myth, the movement would never have survived beyond the first decade of its foundation. But he was not a myth. In fact, history was made for him. He is the meaning of history.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Exactly - and does anybody

Exactly - and does anybody actually believe that there's such a thing as SUFFICIENT proof that would satisfy the founders of this site that Jesus existed.

Any theist who's spent more than a day on this site knows that there's NOTHING rational or open-minded about many of the atheists who post on this site. Their minds are as closed and as obsessed as the most hard-core Christian Fundementalist.

Or that they're actually going to part with $666 when that money could be used to buy Rook alot of his "free" books..??

 Seriously, the owners of this site are playing games with the theists - and the theists are falling for it hook, line and sinker. 

Do yourself a favour - don't play their silly little game.

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Spumoni:  You and I don't

Spumoni: 

You and I don't believe in (pink) unicorns, but I'm willing to bet that on a planet of 6.0 billion, there are people who believe in unicorns. 

But could you imagine getting up each day knowing that your life - your reason for living -  is devoted to disproving the existence of (pink) unicorns. Or debating or arguing with people who do believe in (pink) unicorns. 

Just think about that for a moment. 

You would actually spend countless hours debating with people about something that you don't believe in.!!!

In my opinion, a rational person would look at somebody who believes in (pink) unicorns, smile, shake their head in amazement and move on and actually do something that's alittle more productive or interesting.

Honestly, I find it very funny that we theists supposedly suffer from some  kind of "mind disorder". I wonder what it says about the hard-core posters on this site who have hundreds or thousands of posts to their credit who spend countless hours of their lives debating with people who supposedly suffer from some mind disorder.

What kind of a mind disorder must they have that would would invest so much time debating with people who believe in (pink) unicorns..!! 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Bron, very well said. No

 Bron, very well said. No one is going around trying to disprove pink unicorns or the Grinch who stole Christmas. People don't hate things that don't exist. Jesus exists, that's why atheists hate him and are so committed to trying to discredit him. If God and Jesus don't exist, why do atheists even care? God and Jesus make people happy and give meaning to their lives. Maybe the atheist is just jealous of theists? Perhaps. I submit however that there are dark forces working in the world today with a fulltime commitment/agenda to deliver this world from knowledge of God. This is all the word of Antichrist who's appearance is just around the corner. This was all prophesied in Scripture.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  Bron,

Apotheon wrote:
 Bron, very well said. No one is going around trying to disprove pink unicorns or the Grinch who stole Christmas. People don't hate things that don't exist. Jesus exists, that's why atheists hate him and are so committed to trying to discredit him. If God and Jesus don't exist, why do atheists even care? God and Jesus make people happy and give meaning to their lives. Maybe the atheist is just jealous of theists? Perhaps. I submit however that there are dark forces working in the world today with a fulltime commitment/agenda to deliver this world from knowledge of God. This is all the word of Antichrist who's appearance is just around the corner. This was all prophesied in Scripture.

 

I think atheists primarily fall into two categories.

There are atheists like my wife - a physician - who really doesn't give a damn if people (like her husband, for example) have faith and religious beliefs or if her young son, Brandon, is baptized in a Catholic church. 

Her position is that our son will grow up and get the benefit of two very different points of view and will have an opportunity to come to his own beliefs based on the "evidence" and, most important, how his mind interprets that evidence.

 But if people get some satisfaction or hope or happiness from their beliefs, then that's fine.

 And, of course, you have theists who fall into this similar category.  

And then, of course, you have the types of atheists who spend countless hours on sites like this telling the world why they don't believe in "pink unicorns".

 Many of these types of posters remind me of the hard core Christian fundamentalists who feel they're here for one reason and one reason only - to convert the world to their way of thinking. 

To me, there's 0.00000% difference, for example, between the founders of this web site and the late Jerry Falwell, for example.  

Like I said in a previous post, I have no idea why someone would log onto a computer each and every day and spend their time debating with somebody who believes in pink unicorns. 

What kind of a mind disorder must that person suffer from I wonder..???


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 I believe, though I can't

 I believe, though I can't prove it here, that the Masons are behind all of this. They have been on an agenda for generations to destroy Christianity because we pose a threat to their leader the devil/Antichrist. I believe the Masons are behind the modern phenomenon of the "Jesus Mythicist" campaign. They know its BS but they don't care. They have an agenda to deceive and mislead people. I believe most, if not all of the liberals behind the Jesus Seminar are Masons, and I believe the Masons are the ones funding these type of organizations. They are also behind the modern atheist movement, evolution (even though they know evolution is fasle, they have to make it appear as real science in order to strenghten their case against Christian theism), the UFO movement (the Intelligent Design movement is the conspiratorial work in order to replace evolution and give the creation credit to extra-terrestrials. I'm not sure about this but it is a theory. Satan always wanted to be worshipped as the Creator). This would explain God away. The modern Occult phenomenon, the rise of Witchcraft in Western Europe and America (southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world), the liberal protestant/Catholic movement (women priests, the denial of historical biblical doctrines, false ecumenism, etc), the rise of UFO movements and interests (Raelians, etc. UFO cults are rising up all over the place), the "Jesus Myth" theory postulated in the 19th century was Masonic in origin I believe, the destruction of the Catholic Church through the flagrant blasphemies of the Vatican II Council, which resulted in over 20 million Catholics in America alone leaving the Church (this is a well known fact that Masons were behind this council, and are also penetrating the Vatican). The Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople is a Mason, etc. These are dark and evil forces working behind the scenes in order to deceive, lie and write history after their own ambitions. They want to replace Christianity with a "new" false form of Christianity that will appeal to our modern apostate society. They are going to initiate a one world order (by the way, all the founders of the Republican party were Masons), and a one world religion where Antichrist will sit as absolute ruler. They have hijacked our governments and are working behind the scenes right now in order to prepair society for this evil end. We will soon lose our Constitutional liberties (all the atheist organizations working to elimnate Theism from society are Masonic and/or funded by Masons), the abortion movement is Masonic in that they are commited to decreasing the population. Pro-abortion organizations (Planned Parenthood, etc) are Masonic or funded by the Masons, same sex marriage was initiated in order to destroy the moral fabric of society and the family structure. These evil forces are the angents and apostles of Antichrist. They are preparing society for his coming. The Masons are working to make things seem so bad in society and the world, that we will run to the Antichrist when he comes because he will offer world peace, world unity and a one world religion, and he will be the ruler of it all. The good news is that they lose in the end.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: I believe,

Apotheon wrote:
I believe, though I can't prove it here, that the Masons are behind all of this. They have been on an agenda for generations to destroy Christianity because we pose a threat to their leader the devil/Antichrist. I believe the Masons are behind the modern phenomenon of the "Jesus Mythicist" campaign. They know its BS but they don't care. They have an agenda to deceive and mislead people. I believe most, if not all of the liberals behind the Jesus Seminar are Masons, and I believe the Masons are the ones funding these type of organizations. They are also behind the modern atheist movement, evolution (even though they know evolution is fasle, they have to make it appear as real science in order to strenghten their case against Christian theism), the UFO movement (the Intelligent Design movement is the conspiratorial work in order to replace evolution and give the creation credit to extra-terrestrials. I'm not sure about this but it is a theory. Satan always wanted to be worshipped as the Creator). This would explain God away. The modern Occult phenomenon, the rise of Witchcraft in Western Europe and America (southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world), the liberal protestant/Catholic movement (women priests, the denial of historical biblical doctrines, false ecumenism, etc), the rise of UFO movements and interests (Raelians, etc. UFO cults are rising up all over the place), the "Jesus Myth" theory postulated in the 19th century was Masonic in origin I believe, the destruction of the Catholic Church through the flagrant blasphemies of the Vatican II Council, which resulted in over 20 million Catholics in America alone leaving the Church (this is a well known fact that Masons were behind this council, and are also penetrating the Vatican). The Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople is a Mason, etc. These are dark and evil forces working behind the scenes in order to deceive, lie and write history after their own ambitions. They want to replace Christianity with a "new" false form of Christianity that will appeal to our modern apostate society. They are going to initiate a one world order (by the way, all the founders of the Republican party were Masons), and a one world religion where Antichrist will sit as absolute ruler. They have hijacked our governments and are working behind the scenes right now in order to prepair society for this evil end. We will soon lose our Constitutional liberties (all the atheist organizations working to elimnate Theism from society are Masonic and/or funded by Masons), the abortion movement is Masonic in that they are commited to decreasing the population. Pro-abortion organizations (Planned Parenthood, etc) are Masonic or funded by the Masons, same sex marriage was initiated in order to destroy the moral fabric of society and the family structure. These evil forces are the angents and apostles of Antichrist. They are preparing society for his coming. The Masons are working to make things seem so bad in society and the world, that we will run to the Antichrist when he comes because he will offer world peace, world unity and a one world religion, and he will be the ruler of it all. The good news is that they lose in the end.

Dude, go see a psychiatrist.  Seriously.  Because if you actually believe this stuff, you have some serious issues.  I was going to respond to the previous posts you wrote, but there ain't no way I'm going to debate with somebody as fruity as this.  If what you posted was a joke, then congratulations, you got me pretty damn good, just tell me and I will continue where I left off, and I will respond to your previous posts.  Otherwise, go get some serious help (or do you thik Psychiatry is run by the Masons as well?)

By the way, my friend from work wants to know, when you talk to God and Jesus, do they talk back to you?


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I just wanted to add as

I just wanted to add as well, because you mentioned "Dr." Hovind's challange (his Ph.D. isn't actually in science, its in Christian Education). It's garbage, not because his requirements are too high, but because hes asking for things that evolution doesn't even argue for. Infact, I've already debunked his nonsense challange a couple of months ago: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/6778


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  I

Apotheon wrote:
 I believe, though I can't prove it here, that the Masons are behind all of this. They have been on an agenda for generations to destroy Christianity because we pose a threat to their leader the devil/Antichrist. I believe the Masons are behind the modern phenomenon of the "Jesus Mythicist" campaign. They know its BS but they don't care. They have an agenda to deceive and mislead people. I believe most, if not all of the liberals behind the Jesus Seminar are Masons, and I believe the Masons are the ones funding these type of organizations. They are also behind the modern atheist movement, evolution (even though they know evolution is fasle, they have to make it appear as real science in order to strenghten their case against Christian theism), the UFO movement (the Intelligent Design movement is the conspiratorial work in order to replace evolution and give the creation credit to extra-terrestrials. I'm not sure about this but it is a theory. Satan always wanted to be worshipped as the Creator). This would explain God away. The modern Occult phenomenon, the rise of Witchcraft in Western Europe and America (southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world), the liberal protestant/Catholic movement (women priests, the denial of historical biblical doctrines, false ecumenism, etc), the rise of UFO movements and interests (Raelians, etc. UFO cults are rising up all over the place), the "Jesus Myth" theory postulated in the 19th century was Masonic in origin I believe, the destruction of the Catholic Church through the flagrant blasphemies of the Vatican II Council, which resulted in over 20 million Catholics in America alone leaving the Church (this is a well known fact that Masons were behind this council, and are also penetrating the Vatican). The Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople is a Mason, etc. These are dark and evil forces working behind the scenes in order to deceive, lie and write history after their own ambitions. They want to replace Christianity with a "new" false form of Christianity that will appeal to our modern apostate society. They are going to initiate a one world order (by the way, all the founders of the Republican party were Masons), and a one world religion where Antichrist will sit as absolute ruler. They have hijacked our governments and are working behind the scenes right now in order to prepair society for this evil end. We will soon lose our Constitutional liberties (all the atheist organizations working to elimnate Theism from society are Masonic and/or funded by Masons), the abortion movement is Masonic in that they are commited to decreasing the population. Pro-abortion organizations (Planned Parenthood, etc) are Masonic or funded by the Masons, same sex marriage was initiated in order to destroy the moral fabric of society and the family structure. These evil forces are the angents and apostles of Antichrist. They are preparing society for his coming. The Masons are working to make things seem so bad in society and the world, that we will run to the Antichrist when he comes because he will offer world peace, world unity and a one world religion, and he will be the ruler of it all. The good news is that they lose in the end.

 Fellow, you and I may be theists, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the atheists on this one who may be thinking - but not necessarily expressing the opinion - that you're not playing with a full deck..!!

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It does sound like Apotheon

It does sound like Apotheon wears a tinfoil hat! wtf


platinum_trunks
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
RRS, is it safe to say in

RRS, is it safe to say in your opinion, that the only proof of Jesus either comes from the NT or 4-5 other sources that were previously mentioned?


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
platinum_trunks wrote: RRS,

platinum_trunks wrote:
RRS, is it safe to say in your opinion, that the only proof of Jesus either comes from the NT or 4-5 other sources that were previously mentioned?

Yep. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: To me,

Broncosfan wrote:

To me, there's 0.00000% difference, for example, between the founders of this web site and the late Jerry Falwell, for example.

So, you couldn't tell them apart?

Here's one way.

One of them has no problem with using methods of delusion to gain power, no matter the possible negative ramifications for the world.

The others are concerned precisely with this. 

 

Quote:

Like I said in a previous post, I have no idea why someone would log onto a computer each and every day and spend their time debating with somebody who believes in pink unicorns.

I can't take you seriously. The question of 'god' is one of the most imporrtant questions facing mankind.

If it's true, it deserves my attention as a human.

If it's false, it deserves my attention as a psychologist, a logician and a philosopher.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
platinum_trunks wrote: RRS,

platinum_trunks wrote:
RRS, is it safe to say in your opinion, that the only proof of Jesus either comes from the NT or 4-5 other sources that were previously mentioned?

 

The only existent claims for Jesus come from the NT. The other purported historical claims (Josephus) are at most, hearsay, and not historical documents. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/page

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

 

Here is a site with information on historical Jesus. 


platinum_trunks
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
All that really says is

All that really says is that he probably exsisted, but we have no evidence for his godness or miracles besides the NT.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

Here is a site with information on historical Jesus.

This site didn't really have anything new.  The only evidence I could find in it was from the gospels, and couple of references to Josephus (namely the Testimonium Flavinum, which has been thouroughly debunked as a 3rd/4th century forgery).  And that's basically it.  The rest seems to be opinions on what a historical Jesus would have been like from those who believe that Jesus existed, and all of this opinions seem to be based on what is said in the gospels, and archeological evidence of what life was like at the time Jesus was suppose to have existed.  All without making a single reference.

It's also interesting that while this article says there was a historical Jesus, it also says that Jesus wasn't divine, or the Son or God.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Gimme my

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ahura Mazda
Ahura Mazda's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Gimme my

I don't think that's going to cut the mustard.  From the first post on this thread:

Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there.

 

They are asking for (i) contemporary evidence and (ii) evidence not just for an historical Yeshua, but evidence for the supernatural being depicted in the gospels. 

Of course, this is stacking the deck quite a bit.  Contemporary evidence doesn't survive or exist for all kinds of ancient figures, but to pretend this means they didn't exist is plain dumb.  And ruling out the supernatural Jesus of the gospels is NOT the same thing as ruling out any historical Jesus at all.

The "Wise Old Atheist" says: They decided to invent a god and came up with one who looked like a peasant preacher from Galilee?! Were they on crack?


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, thats true. My

Yeah, thats true. My evidence doesn't actually meet their standards. I still want the $666 though!

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


dogg724
dogg724's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Can you provide a working link?

todangst wrote:
sharky wrote:
Okay, firstly I understand you seem to have made your minds up already about the existence of God
Please stop projecting your dogmatic thinking onto others. We don't believe because there's no good reason to believe. Show us some good reasons, and we'll change our minds. Who wouldn't want to live forever in eternal bliss? If you're right, and you convince me, then that's where I'll be. But if we're right, then your fantasyland dies... so it's pretty clear that the bias is far, far stronger for your side.
Quote:
, and your question is set up more to make a mockery of Faith rather than a genuine wanting to examine the possibility of God existing.
If you have evidence, present it.
Quote:
Firstly, when proving the existence of Jesus, It becomes apparent the Bible is going to be relied upon heavily for literary evidence.
So, you don't have any actual contemporary historical accounts.
Quote:
This begs the question 'Is the new testament reliable?'
And it is not. Read Rook's posts on this.
Quote:
There is one problem with this theory, though. If people kept deciding to change details to make the story more interesting, you'd soon have one final version saying Jesus surfed on water, another saying he hovered above it, another saying he was Jet biking across it - each version with minor differences. This is of course an exaggerated scenario, but the point remains - how come all of the texts we have of the bible agree?
Actually, this is precisely what we do find. The book of Mark is the first account, and the most sober account of the gospels. There isn't even a virgin birth, nor was there even a resurrection story in the earliest editions. By the time we get past the synopotic gospels, to the last gospel, John, we have the most supernatural and mysterious account of 'jesus' of all. We do end up with a scenario just like you've presented. Tell me, do you even read the gospels yourself? If you did, you'd know this already.
Quote:
Contradictions? You may argue that there are minor contradictions with the bible - eg in Mathew 1 and Luke 3, where Jesus' genealogies are listed. Different names are mentioned, so there is a possible contradiction. An explanation of this could be Mathew may give Joseph's side of the family tree while Luke gives Mary's side, or that both genealogies are of Joseph's side,
Read Rook's refutation of this nonsensical attempt to dodge the problem.
Quote:
Early Problems This brings us to another stumbling block for the Bible's authenticity - what if the problem was at the top of the chain, before or with the first writer?
Actually, there are many more stumbling blocks than this. There's the fact that the books are anonymous. There's the fact that the Matthew author even concedes he was not a witness. There's the fact that even the earliest version, Mark, is clearly a midrash of the Old Testament and not an eyewitness account of anything. If you are really so open minded as you imply, you'd read this: http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
Quote:
The question is - would any of these people have a motive or reason to make stuff up about Jesus.
Sure. Because to them, 'jesus' was a concept. a teacher. The specifics didn't matter... what mattered was their belief...
Quote:
Usually people only lie to get themselves out of sticky situations or somehow benefit from lying.
They don't need to 'lie', they merely need to believe that what they are doing is right.
Quote:
The scholar Craig Blomberg has estimated the time between Jesus' death and the writing of Matthew to 30 years -
He's wrong, and obviously so, because if Matthew were writing by then, then why didn't Paul cite him? Clealry even the book of Mark was not ready at that time, let alone the books that copied from mark: Matthew and Luke.
Quote:
by then, there would still be hundreds of eyewitnesses around who could have easily denied any of the statements made in that book,
You're begging the question that 'jesus' existed in the first place. If there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, then why didn't Paul ask any of them for a description of jesus? Why don't we even learn their names?
Quote:
This has certainly convinced me of the Bible's reliability.
You've not really examined the matter.

 

I was all worked up to read the article and it didn't work Sad 

[i]You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.


Paddy the second
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I will pay YOU if you can

I will pay YOU if you can prove to me that Alexander the Great REALLY existed. The evidence will have to come from an objective written scource wich was produced by a scolar during his lifetime.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second wrote: I

Paddy the second wrote:

I will pay YOU if you can prove to me that Alexander the Great REALLY existed. The evidence will have to come from an objective written scource wich was produced by a scolar during his lifetime.

 

How much will you pay?  Also would you please certify in some manner your seriousness by extrapolating a little?  We don't want you to weasel out after we do so.  After you meet these terms, we'll take care of that for you.  If you want to make it fair and similar to our contest, ask for "contemporary proof" not a "scolar."

Looking forward to the money,

RRS

 

P.S. you have a paypal account, right? 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Paddy the second
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-08
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great#Greek_and_Latin_sources

 

Well, my point is that the criteria you set are just over the top. The existence of a historical person is concidered to be proven long before it meets the criteria you set.

 

Historians usually work with "scources written within 100 years after a person's death" and almost never with "scources written during a person's lifetime". (see for example how Bart D. Ehrman works with his criteria for the historical Jesus in "The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings&quotEye-wink.

 

Ps. I will pay 50 dollar if you can prove AtG's existence in a similar way as you expect others to prove Jesus' existence (post 1)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second

You start out using wikipedia, which shows me that already you show you are unfamiliar with historical methodologies. You seem to think that manuscript attestation is the only form of contemporary evidence.

Quote:
Well, my point is that the criteria you set are just over the top. The existence of a historical person is concidered to be proven long before it meets the criteria you set.

This statement is pretty incoherent. The historicity of Jesus is presupposed - it is assumed, and taken for granted. It has never been "proven" - and if you wish to continue pushing this point, I want you to give me one event of the life of Jesus that is considered to have actually happened in history. The key is, you have you prosent me one event that scholars unanimously agree is historical and is attested. We'll go from there.

Quote:

Historians usually work with "scources written within 100 years after a person's death" and almost never with "scources written during a person's lifetime".

That is fallacious. Again, you seem to think that the only evidence for somebody elses existence is manuscript attestation. You are living in a fantasy world that died one-hundred years ago.

Quote:
(see for example how Bart D. Ehrman works with his criteria for the historical Jesus in "The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings&quotEye-wink.

Bart Ehrman is a fossil, in my opinion. He is of the opinion that Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher, a false position held by Schweitzer at the turn of the last century. It has been exposed as a false position by many modern historical Jesus scholars, yet Bart Ehrman holds to this presupposition. Second, Bart Ehrman, like the rest of the historical Jesus scholars, have done more to confuse the evidence of the so-called historical Jesus than actually solve the mystery. Can you present me one face of the hiostorical Jesus that is, again, unanimous among scholarship? I already know you can't.

Quote:
Ps. I will pay 50 dollar if you can prove AtG's existence in a similar way as you expect others to prove Jesus' existence (post 1)

You had better pay, or you're a liar. We have contemporary evidence of Alexander the Great. The first are a large number of inscriptions which speak of him and his campaigns against the Persians. The most famous is the Astronomical Diary which discusses his victory at Gaugamela. We also have contemporary coins and currency with his face on them, which was a common thing for a Greek king to do (print their images on currency).

We also have contemporary attestation which, although lost, is well documented. General Ptolomy wrote a whole history of the campaign, which Arrian and Plutarch both had copies of. The fact that it is attested to by name in two seperate accounts, and was known to other Hellenistic philosophers and poets suggests that it did exist. But even if you want to claim that as hearsay, there is also the contemporary Aeschines who wrote Against Ctesiphon, a prose which not only discusses the Macedonian campaign, but also specifically mentions Alexander.

We also have archaeological attestation due to the fact that the Hellenistic Age did occur, and the Greeks did conquer the Ancient Near East under Alexander the Great.  Of the later attestation, we also have Diodorus of Sicily, which he names the following sources:

  • Ephorus of Cyme on the History of Greece (It's origins until c. 356)
  • Cleitarchus' history of the conquests of Alexander the Great
  • Hieronymus of Cardia who wrote on the wars following the death of Alexander.

We do not have anything similar to this for Jesus. In other words, (1) no named sources, (2) no contemporary accounts, (3) conflicting accounts of his life (Irenaeus actually attempts to argue that Jesus died in his 50's!), (4) narratives which reflect scripture reinterpretation, (5) where the authors invented and fabricated events and sayings to fit their ends, (6) no archaeological data has been gathered, (7) conflicting accounts of the twelve disciples (what were their names?), etc...

I expect that $50 to be in the RRS Pay Pal account asap.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Paddy the second
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I would be glad to pay

I would be glad to pay Smiling

 

However a few sidenotes need to be made:

First of all I only linked to wiki since that was the first online place I could think of wich sums up most of the things I've read about him

Also, you regard Ehrman as a fossil, I'd say that you are right about that... in a way. Since as I hear the reports of the current theological debates (my professor atains to them frequently) he is still allowed to come in, but most of them only take him half-serious. However, the view that Jesus was an apocaliptic teachter is almost unanomous amongst historians.

 

Oh, and now that we do talk about the turn of the other century, that was exactly the time when the thought of Jesus never having existed first arose, but the last half century noone takes that even serious anymore except for a few people who create they're own little dreamworld.

 

You want a single deed or thing about Jesus wich all scolars agree on unanimous among scholarship? Here is a list:

 

Jezus came from a town named Nazareth.

He was baptized by John the Baptist

He had the reputation of a preacher and a healer

He had 12 followers

He initiated the last supper

Crucefied at pass-over (under Pontius Pilate)

After his death his followers had experiences, both together and when they were alone, of Jesus being alive.

These facts are hard as stone and as unanimous as it gets.

 

I am confident that you will always be able to find someone with a Ph.D. who want's to dispute all this, but this line of thought "Jesus is only pre-supposed" is exactly what I find when reading creationists arguments claiming that "evolution is only pre-supposed" and this is exactly how I can refute your proof for Alexander saying that "Alexander is only pre-supposed and the whole thing was a conspiracy of a few generals who killed Alexander, his his body and went "on campaign" to hide the murder. When they had a fight among themselves and they could no longer agree they devided the empire and claimed Alexander died far away from home. Ever wondered why he never married someone from royal blood?"

There is enough circumstantial evidence that Jesus was indeed here walking this planet, so if you claim that your Alexander-proof is good enough, than I want 616 dollars from you. Sticking out tongue

 

Ps. I'm sorry for the hard words here and there, it's not my intention to insult you, I just think that what your believe about Jesus not having existed doesn't have enough support in modern scolarship.

If you really want to go deep into the Historical Jesus issue I suggest you read "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" By John Meier (a huge 4 volume series) who is regarded as the leading scolar in this area.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second wrote:

Paddy the second wrote:

I would be glad to pay Smiling

Good. When can we expect payment?

Quote:
However a few sidenotes need to be made:

First of all I only linked to wiki since that was the first online place I could think of wich sums up most of the things I've read about him

You should know better to not use wiki. You have obviously not read any published works on the evidence/life of Alexander the Great.

Quote:
Also, you regard Ehrman as a fossil, I'd say that you are right about that... in a way. Since as I hear the reports of the current theological debates (my professor atains to them frequently) he is still allowed to come in, but most of them only take him half-serious.

He knows his stuff when it comes to textual criticism. Beyond that, I find him to be too stuck on old scholarship and sensationalism. He has a chance to come on the show and prove me wrong.

Quote:
However, the view that Jesus was an apocaliptic teachter is almost unanomous amongst historians.

No, it is not. This proves how little you've read on the subject. Consider the list of scholars who write on the historical Jesus; E. P. Sanders, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Ben Witherington, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, Burton Mack, Hyam Maccoby, Morton Smith, Bruce Chilton, John Meier, N. T. Wright, S.G.F. Brandon, G.W. Buchanan, John M. Allegro and many others; there are practically just as many claims from the community as to who Jesus was as there are scholars writing on him. Jesus, according to the questers, was one of the following: An itinerate preacher,[iii] a cynical sage,[iv] the Essene’s righteous rabbi,[v] a Galilean holy man,[vi] a revolutionary leader,[vii] an apocalyptic preacher,[viii] a proto-liberation theologian,[ix] a trance-inducing mental healer,[x] an eschatological prophet,[xi] an occultic magician,[xii] a Pharisee,[xiii] a rabbi who seeks religious-reformation,[xiv] a Galilean charismatic,[xv] a Hillelite,[xvi] an Essene,[xvii] a teacher of wisdom,[xviii] a miracle-working-exorcist prophet[xix] and yes the list goes on. Somewhere in this mess, some really believe to find the historical Jesus. Paul Rhodes Eddy sums up the conflicting dramatis personae by saying that the new quest has been “anything but uniform.”[xx]

The facts on Jesus aren't in yet, because there are no facts - just assertions.

Quote:
Oh, and now that we do talk about the turn of the other century, that was exactly the time when the thought of Jesus never having existed first arose,

That is only because it was then that historical criticism, or redaktionsgeschicte, started. Before that time, there was no science in history. Funny how when you add science, the delusions go away.

Quote:
but the last half century noone takes that even serious anymore except for a few people who create they're own little dreamworld.

That is a fiction. The same could be said about the Old Testament. thirty years ago, nobody questioned the existence of the patriarchs. Now, everyone recognizes the Old Testament as Persian and Hellenized fictions. When you stop taking for granted the conclusions, and assuming the points in dispute, that is when you will be a real historian. Until that day, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
You want a single deed or thing about Jesus wich all scolars agree on unanimous among scholarship? Here is a list:

 

(1) Jezus came from a town named Nazareth.

(2) He was baptized by John the Baptist

(3) He had the reputation of a preacher and a healer

(4) He had 12 followers

(5) He initiated the last supper

(6) Crucefied at pass-over (under Pontius Pilate)

(7) After his death his followers had experiences, both together and when they were alone, of Jesus being alive.

These facts are hard as stone and as unanimous as it gets.

Watch how easy it is to melt these. First you just ripped off Gary Habbermas or Mike Licona, both of whom have been taken to task by mythicists like Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. In any case, lets get down to why these are fictions and not facts.

(1) The town of Nazareth, although it existed, was a literary development. The root of the word "Nazir" is specifically related to Old Testament reinterpretation. In other words, it was chosen as a fiction writer chooses a city for their characters to be from. This intent was to relate the Jesus of the authors narrative to the story in Judges 13:7. The author of the narratives is letting you know he is doing that when he even relates back to this in his narrative! (Matthew 2:22-23, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene.&quotEye-wink Although Matthew seems to have mistranslated the scriptures as it is "Nazirite" not "Nazarene" - unless he was using the LXX, which is more than probable. This is not fact any more than your other claims, which are also just the authors creative imagination when reinterpreting scripture.

(2) John the Baptist is representative of literary fiction as well. (No attestation exists for him either, and the only mention in Joephus is not "John the Baptiser" but "John the Essene" - Christian imaginations fly and here is an example of one making a "Johnson mistake" at reviewing the data with "Gospel colored glasses&quotEye-wink. Again, in Mark, the author is portraying John as Elijah, and even makes this known by having John wearing camel-hair robes and a leather belt, exactly the same attire as is discribed in 1 Kings. Matthew reuses Marks narrative and copies this part (as he does with most of Marks Gospel) which is why it appear. Luke then takes Marks account and Matthews birth narrative and expands on the Legend to reinterpret the birth narratives of Isaac in Genesis to create the births of Jesus and John.

(3) This is speculative. It all comes from the Gospel accounts. Orpheus had that reputation too - but he never existed either.

(4) The 12 disciples is not attested by early Christians - according to Paul, there were many disciples (Paul includes himself) without giving us a number. The 12 disicples comes from Mark reinterpreting scripture again. 12 disciples is representative of 12 tribes of Israel, and also the calling of the 12 heads of the 12 tribes by Moses in the Old Testament. Not historical fact, but literary invention - just as the Gospel author intended to have his narrative read as.

(5) The last supper comes from Pauline theology, NOT from history. Mark is aware of Pauline theology, and in the Epistles Paul recounts a vision (NOT AN ACTUAL EVENT, in 1 Cor. 11:23, he writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you," right before he gives the account of Jesus' supper - Paul never met Jesus, but received his knowledge through revelation or visions which he makes clear in Gal. 1) of Jesus in heaven before he was killed by the Archons (heavenly rulers, the initiators...the Archons are those who αρχε) eating and drinking. This is not factual, but again it is rather the reading of Paul with "Gospel colored glasses". Another "Johnson mistake", as opposed to a "Nixon mistake".

(6) The crucifixion is more literary creation. Especiall the concept of it happening on passover. Paul believes Jesus to have been crucified on another plane of existence, one of the several heavens which Paul believes in (and Paul attests to in the Epistles), by the Archons (again, the rulers of the aeons). It is Paul, this time, who is reinterpreting Isaiah's account of the messiah, as well as Mark who draws in the Psalms of David, to create the account of the crucifixion. Mark just adds onto Paul's version, which is similar to the account written of Prometheus' crucifixion (stauros) as attested to by the poet Aeschylus. This poem was not only known to Hellenized Jews, but the author of another Jewish pseudepigrapha, the so-called third maccabees, not only drew from the concept of Prometheus Bound, but uses the name Aeschylus more than any other in his fictional narrative, which was written around the first century CE.

(7) Another fiction, which is again, you speculating. His followers had visions, yes - that was how this all started. Somebody had a vision. That vision got reinterpreted, and continued to be reinterpreted up until Athanasius issued his Easter edict banishing all other narratives save for the books we now have in the New Testament, not long after the Council of Nicea. The Gospels we have in the New Testament were a product of that reinterpreting, not the originators of a tradition. And that reinterpreting is seen within the Gospels themselves, such as the growing legend and tradition surrounding the resurrection and crucifixion.

Quote:
I am confident that you will always be able to find someone with a Ph.D. who want's to dispute all this, but this line of thought "Jesus is only pre-supposed" is exactly what I find when reading creationists arguments claiming that "evolution is only pre-supposed"

Fallacy of false analogy. Evolution is a fact and a theory, as Jesus is neither - he is a literary character which people assume was real. Evolution is the foundation of all life science, including modern pharmaceutical sciences. Jesus is the foundation of peoples faith - as defined as belief in something without evidence, or in spite of evidence.

 

Quote:
and this is exactly how I can refute your proof for Alexander saying that "Alexander is only pre-supposed and the whole thing was a conspiracy of a few generals who killed Alexander, his his body and went "on campaign" to hide the murder.

Except we have inscriptions from Persia which discuss Alexander, and tons of contemporary evidence. You OWE us $50. You said you'd give us $50 if we provided you with contemporary accounts. I gave you that. You owe us the money, or we'll just have to expose you as a liar and a fraud. At this point, I'm disappointed in your intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:
When they had a fight among themselves and they could no longer agree they devided the empire and claimed Alexander died far away from home. Ever wondered why he never married someone from royal blood?"

Except for the fact that we have independant attestation from a contemporary in Greece. Again, you are ignorant. Ignorant, and now a liar on top of it.

Quote:
There is enough circumstantial evidence that Jesus was indeed here walking this planet,

Wishful thinking on your part.  Your speculations and poorly researched claims hardly count as evidence.

Quote:
so if you claim that your Alexander-proof is good enough, than I want 616 dollars from you. :P

Now you're also an asshole. (1) You did not provide contemporary evidence. (2) The evidence I provided trumps your "circumstantial" garabage that I easily refuted. (3) None of the evidence for Alexander is circumstantial - I dount you even know what that word means. (4) You're a liar. (5) You're intellectually dishonest.

I expect that $50 from you today. Or, you'll be exposed to thousands of people as a fraud and a liar. Your call.


[i] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1992) Pg. xxvii

[ii] ------- Pg. xxviii

[iii] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992)

[iv] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992); Burton Mack, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic and Legacy (2003), The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (1993), and A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (1988); F.G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (1992); Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449-469.

[v] John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

[vi] Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1973), The Religion of Jesus the Jew (1993); B. Thiering, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story (1992).

[vii] S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (1967); G.W. Buchanan, Jesus: The King and His Kingdom (1984)

[viii] Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci CodeFrom Jesus to Christ (1988) (2004); Paula Fredriksen,

[ix] James M. Robinson, The Jesus of Q as Liberation Theologian, paper presented at the Jesus

Seminar, (October 25-27,1991).

[x] S. Davies, On the Inductive Discourse of Jesus: The Psychotherapeutic Foundation of Christianity, paper presented at the Jesus Seminar, (October 22-25, 1992) and Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (1995)

[xi] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (1985); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2: Mentor, Message and Miracles (1994).

[xii] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (1978)

[xiii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); Hyam Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee (2003)

[xiv] Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (1987); Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (2006); Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (1984)

[xv] Geza Vermes, Jesus in the World of Judaism (1984)

[xvi] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003)

[xvii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

[xviii] Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (1995)

[xix] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (1982)

[xx] Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second wrote: I

Paddy the second wrote:

I would be glad to pay Smiling

 

That was fun, thanks for letting us play your game.  Please paypal the money through here within 24 hours and state it's from you.  

 

Hang around too.  Feel free to offer other bets as well, especially if you keep the bar as low as you did in this one. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Paddy the second
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Well, in that case I fear

Well, in that case I fear it's a goodbye for ever Sad

I was hoping to learn something from you guys here, but you sound just as confident in your "facts" than Kent Hovind.

You only read and point to outdated data or ghetto-scolarship wich has the same historical value as the Davinci code and refuse to listen to someone who's profession is to investigate these kind of things (me).

 

I have no more hopes for you ever learing me something usefull since everything wich is said here is filtered by a "rational" (as long as it's anti-christian) filter.

 

Farewell


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second

Paddy the second wrote:

Well, in that case I fear it's a goodbye for ever Sad

Because you have been exposed?   

Quote:
I was hoping to learn something from you guys here, but you sound just as confident in your "facts" than Kent Hovind.

Everyone who is reading this:  This is the inherent dishonesty in theism, right here. 

Quote:
You only read and point to outdated data or ghetto-scolarship

What have I cited that is outdated?  And what the hell is "ghetto-scolarship?"  Again, you are showing your dishonest side.  You're a liar, and you can't type coherently.  Two problems you should correct. 

Quote:
wich has the same historical value as the Davinci code and refuse to listen to someone who's profession is to investigate these kind of things (me).

I'm calling your bullshit.  Considering I've been studying this subject for 9 years now, and am being peer reviewed for publication for the worlds top academic journal by the worlds leading theologian, I believe I have more authority than you do.  If anything, your blatant bias towards Habermas and Licona tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, and your naive conclusion that because scholarship believes a certain way that I am wrong is unschooled, and it is a position which is fallacious.  Might does not equal right. 

Quote:
I have no more hopes for you ever learing me something usefull since everything wich is said here is filtered by a "rational" (as long as it's anti-christian) filter.

Again, you've been exposed as a liar.  You are incapable of backing up your claims, and when I call you out on them you run.  You are hopeless, so long as you continue to delude yourself.

Good riddance. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
That was entertaining...did

That was entertaining...did he pay the $50? Eye-wink


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Paddy the second

Paddy the second wrote:

Well, in that case I fear it's a goodbye for ever Sad

 Good thing that bet wasn't with the mob... you'd be getting a beating right about now.

 

Quote:
I was hoping to learn something from you guys here, but you sound just as confident in your "facts" than Kent Hovind.

No, Kent knows he's full of shit.  We however are completely confident in the facts we have today, and the fact that you are not a man of your word, thereby making you unethical and immoral by my moral standard.  You are also less moral than I.

 

Quote:
You only read and point to outdated data or ghetto-scolarship wich has the same historical value as the Davinci code and refuse to listen to someone who's profession is to investigate these kind of things (me).

I wouldn't have thought of you as the kind of guy that has a job.  Are you a priest?

 

Quote:
I have no more hopes for you ever learing me something usefull since everything wich is said here is filtered by a "rational" (as long as it's anti-christian) filter.

 Farewell

Later.  As soon as I have time I am going to organize a huge fundraiser to expose you as a fraud.  We will ask anyone with a higher ethical standard than you to send $50 each in lieu of the bet you are unwilling to pay due to your dishonesty.  Hopefully at least several dozen people will send the money just to spite you, campaigns like this have worked in the past.  

If you would like to ensure we don't raise hundreds of dollars to spread "rational" concepts, be a person of honor and send the $50.   And I'll save myself the hassle of creating a fundraiser in your honor. 

 

Quote:
That was entertaining...did he pay the $50? Eye-wink

No, and I was almost certain we were dealing with a dishonest fraud upon reading his first post.  Looks like I was right.

 

Anyone want to send $50 in honor of "paddy the second" and report your donation in this thread, to express your disgust for his unethical actions?  (it would save me the time of creating a fundraiser)  If you see someone else make a donation and you can do so, feel free to lump yours on top.  If you can't make it a total of $50 just give what you think it's worth to expose dishonest frauds like "paddy the second."

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This is a perfect - PERFECT

This is a perfect - PERFECT - example of why we're fighting theism. This dude had only three options after Rook offered exactly what he asked for.

1) Prove rook wrong

2) Pay up

3) Run away.

The thing is, he can't prove Rook wrong because there is proof of Alexander. He also can't pay up, because then he'd be admitting that there's a chink in his theist armor. He believes that absolutely everything he believes is certain, because Jesus lived, and he talks to him in his wee little heart, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or ignorant.

This leaves only one option. He must run away. He's going to go back to church and whine about how the mean people at RRS treated him so unfairly, and how they changed the rules, and how they didn't honor the spirit of his stupid bet.

A rational person would simply say, "Wow. You know what? That was a stupid bet on my part. Here's your fifty dollars. I'll try to think before I speak in the future."

Theism teaches him that he's got to be right. Jesus has to be as likely as Alexander! If he admits that Alexander is more likely than Jesus, he's admitting that dozens of apologists who've used this stupid argument are....

WRONG.

And then he might have to question those apologists, instead of taking them at their word simply because Jesus told them some secrets.

Folks, this is a great opportunity. Not only could we use the money, but if enough people chip in, Paddy would be single-handedly responsible for financing our server for a month, just by being a typical theist. Let's make sure that while he's lurking and reading everything we say about him (Yes, Paddy... we know when you are here...) that he realizes how much better things would have been if he'd just been a man of honesty and integrity (both Christian virtues, right, Paddy?) and paid up.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
My $50 is in. Paddy can

My $50 is in. Paddy can thank me later Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I donated to help make up

I donated to help make up for this assclown.

 Good day. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
In honor of Paddy, RRS is

In honor of Paddy, RRS is proud to announce the Alexander the Great Badge.

As soon as we receive five $50 donations in the name of Paddy the Second, we will give out the Alexander the Great Badge.  Show the world how you feel about assclowns who don't pay their bets when they've been clearly beaten!  Wear your badge with pride!

Let's go, folks!  Only five people to pay Paddy's bet, and he'll be ridiculed forever!

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ebionite

Ebionite wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Considering I've been studying this subject for 9 years now, and am being peer reviewed for publication for the worlds top academic journal by the worlds leading theologian, I believe I have more authority than you do.

Which publication is "the worlds top academic journal"? Which scholar is "the worlds leading theologian"? When were these things decided, how and by whom?

The fact that Rook's work is being peer-reviewed is the important thing. Why do you want him to name-drop? 

If he did, would you respect that or say "He's appealing to authority so his arguments are invalid"?

And what does that have to do with Rook handing Paddy his hindquarters? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1246
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Paddy the second

Paddy the second wrote:

Well, in that case I fear it's a goodbye for ever Sad

I was hoping to learn something from you guys here, but you sound just as confident in your "facts" than Kent Hovind.

You only read and point to outdated data or ghetto-scolarship wich has the same historical value as the Davinci code and refuse to listen to someone who's profession is to investigate these kind of things (me).

 

I have no more hopes for you ever learing me something usefull since everything wich is said here is filtered by a "rational" (as long as it's anti-christian) filter.

 

Farewell

 

Rook provided information on Alexander's historicity.  If that information is unsatisfactory, you should either explain why -- or pay up like you said you would.

Rook cited sources for each of his claims about the jesus myth.  If his claims or citations are faulty, you should again explain why -- not simply call "ghetto-scolarship" and sneak down the fire escape.

My $50 is on the way. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Ebionite
Ebionite's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Ebionite

jcgadfly wrote:
Ebionite wrote:

Which publication is "the worlds top academic journal"? Which scholar is "the worlds leading theologian"? When were these things decided, how and by whom?

The fact that Rook's work is being peer-reviewed is the important thing.

Indeed.  Though the fact that he says he knows who is doing the reviewing is odd, since top academic journals use a blind reviewing process. 

 

Quote:
Why do you want him to name-drop?

I was merely curious about his claim that his reviewer is "the world's top theologian".  This person is the "top theologian" according to who?  How was this determined and when?  I wasn't aware that there was some kind of independent ranking of theologians, so it would be rather difficult to substantiate that claim.

Ditto for the claim about the world's "top academic journal".  There are several possible contenders for that status - The Proceedings of the Royal Society, for example.  Or The Lancet.  Or Nature.  But none of them publish material on Biblical history.  Even if Rook meant a journal that does publish on Biblical history, there's no independent ranking of them either, so there is no "top journal" in that field.

Quote:
If he did, would you respect that or say "He's appealing to authority so his arguments are invalid"?

Er, no.  My point was simply that making claims like "I'm being reviewed by the most amazingest scholar in the world and will be published by the biggestest and bestest journal in the universe!" doesn't exactly do his credibility a lot of favours.  I've found in other threads Rook has a tendancy to overstate things.  It weakens his arguments, even (or especially) when his arguments are otherwise perfectly sound.

Quote:
And what does that have to do with Rook handing Paddy his hindquarters?

See above.  Rook weakens his arguments when he indulges in this kind of hyperbole.  "I'm being peer reviewed by a top rank scholar for a leading journal" would have done nicely.  And I suspect it would also have been closer to the truth. 

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ebionite wrote: Rook

Ebionite wrote:

Rook weakens his arguments when he indulges in this kind of hyperbole. 

Not really.  He still amply showed how Alexander the Great has contemporary evidence.  His argument is only weaker due to a perception you are making, due to spending time on it.  Rook works, converses, gets ideas and assistance from the best historians in the world.  

Why do I call them the best?  Because they are able to see history as it is not as they want it to be.  Why does Rook call them the best?  I don't know, maybe when he was 14 years old and the biggest nerd I know, just studying boring old history all day, maybe he developed a hard on for them... even I don't bother to ask.  

Why doesn't Rook rush to tell you the names?  Because typically when he's done so he has to waste 7 hours playing a semantical masturbation game with someone for as to who they think the best historians are an why.  Or maybe because in the past people have bothered these historians in an attempt to discredit Rook.   

Feel free to read this thread to find out how scumbag Frank Walton wasted a historians time in Rooks honor. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ebionite
Ebionite's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Ebionite

Sapient wrote:
Ebionite wrote:

Rook weakens his arguments when he indulges in this kind of hyperbole. 

Not really.

Yes, really.  If he meant "a theologian that I, personally, regard as the best in the world" then he should have said that.  To say that Thompson is the "best theologian" in the world by any objective measure is silly and doesn't exactly help Rook's credibility.

 

Quote:
His argument is only weaker due to a perception you are making, due to spending time on it. 

See above. 

 

Quote:
Rook works, converses, gets ideas and assistance from the best historians in the world.

 Perhaps some of them, sure.  That doesn't change the fact that claiming that Thomas L. Thompson is the "the world's top theologian" as though this is an objective fact makes him look rather silly.

Quote:
Why do I call them the best?  Because they are able to see history as it is not as they want it to be.
 

 All historians try to do that.  None totally succeed.  All historians have their biases and blind spots, including the ones I happen to agree with.  So do the ones that you and Rook happen to agree with.  Again, to claim they have some superior claim to objectivity is a very strange claim.

 

Quote:
Why does Rook call them the best?  I don't know, maybe when he was 14 years old and the biggest nerd I know, just studying boring old history all day, maybe he developed a hard on for them... even I don't bother to ask. 

Calling Thompson "the world's top theologian" certainly does sound like he has a hard on for him and, as I said, it makes Rook sound silly.  Which doesn't help his arguments.   

Quote:
Why doesn't Rook rush to tell you the names? 

 I already knew who he was referring to (Google is good that way), I was simply pointing out the silliness of claiming that Thompson was "the world's top theologian".     

Quote:
Feel free to read this thread to find out how scumbag Frank Walton wasted a historians time in Rooks honor.

That link leads to a page that says "Page Not Found".  But my earlier Googling already dug up what you're referring to which seemed to be a scumbag called Tim O'Neill wasting his time.

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ebionite,

Ebionite,

Thank you for your strong desire to help me. I don't know why you feel as though you have to point out everytime I don't state something as an opinion, on a message board, where everything I write is written from my perspective, which automatically makes it opinion. Your hijacking of this thread to come to my rescue is not helpful.

After all, I could point out your miserable hyperbole when you tried to suggest that "all historians" try to look at the world as it is and not as they want it to be. I could also point out that very fiew actually do - including many of the historical Jesus scholars, where it is obvious that when they attempt to find the historical Jesus they are looking into the well of New Testament scholarship they see their own reflection where they think they see Jesus. Schweitzer saw this in the first quest, and Bornkamm saw it in the second. Most historians have a bias, or even a presupposition, and read the evidence with that bias. Thus, as I've said elsewhere, many historians constantly are making these "Johnson" style mistakes, not so much "Nixon" mistakes. The majority of critical scholarship is still fairly religious. I see it all the time, it bleeds through works. And where fundamentalists give the Jesus seminar a hard time for being without faith - what they are missing is that many of the fellows of this seminar hold faith, and even faith-necessary positions. Some are the heads of catholic colleges like St. Paul. Some are priests. Many hold positions as pastors or teach at theological seminaries. Many are aware of the same evidence I am. But often they will do what I and many others have shown they do - they compartmentalize. How is that "seeing the world how it is?" Certainly, not all historians try to do that. Perhaps you meant "in my opinion, all historians try to do that."

You see what I mean? Of COURSE it was your opinion. But I don't have to make myself look like an asshole by pointing out every time you don't preface your opinion with a "this is my opinion." It is already assumed by every reasonably intelligent person who is reading your post. And really, you do look like a complete asshole. And I know you're not, I know you're just trying to help me. You think I weaken arguments. I really do appreciate that you are trying to hone my skills. But you're going about it the wrong way.

Perhaps instead of wasting Brian's time and every one elses on this mundane issue that you seem to keep bringing up, you should be asking yourself, "Why does Rook feel Thompson is the best theologian in the world?" Perhaps it is because it was his work which changed the course of Old Testament scholarship? Perhaps because he is a fiercely honest individual, who I know personally and am good friends with, who does in fact look at the world as it is and not as he wants it to be. And he has taken a lot of heat for doing this. People even consider him an "antiZionist" which of course is a complete fabrication from those historians who can't, effectively, see the world as it is - because as shown above, there are historians who choose to ignore the world as it is because it effects their faith. There are equals to Thompson in ideal, and I feel that all minimalists hold to that maxim - see the world as it is, not as you want it to be. But Thompson got the ball rolling. And the fact that he continues to question even his own conclusions after forty years is quite remarkable.

Now take a step back and read the last few comments to this thread - do you really think that you comment was helpful to the conversations which preceded yours? Do you really think that you are helping by hijacking a thread to correct me where no correction was required? Could you not have, instead, sent a PM which I would have read, probably agreed with you, and just changed the section of text? That would have been helpful. And, you wouldn't look like a complete asshole. But thanks.

 

By the way, in my opinion, Tim O'Neil is Frank Walton, and one of his many other personalities.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Ebionite,

Thank you for your strong desire to help me.  I don't know why you feel as though you have to point out everytime I don't state something as an opinion, on a message board, where everything I write is written from my perspective, which automatically makes it opinion.  Your hijacking of this thread to come to my rescue is not helpful.

Would a mod please clean the hijack and split it off to a new thread?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ebionite wrote: Sapient

Ebionite wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Ebionite wrote:

Rook weakens his arguments when he indulges in this kind of hyperbole.

Not really.

Yes, really. If he meant "a theologian that I, personally, regard as the best in the world" then he should have said that. To say that Thompson is the "best theologian" in the world by any objective measure is silly and doesn't exactly help Rook's credibility.

Quote:
His argument is only weaker due to a perception you are making, due to spending time on it.

See above.

Quote:
Rook works, converses, gets ideas and assistance from the best historians in the world.

Perhaps some of them, sure. That doesn't change the fact that claiming that Thomas L. Thompson is the "the world's top theologian" as though this is an objective fact makes him look rather silly.

Actually, it doesn't. I'm betting you fall for the common error of presuming that qualifying something as the 'best' is somehow an 'opinion' when in fact it is necessarily a fact.

I bet that sounds strange, but read on.

What we call 'opinion' is really our decision as per which criterion is the most important. If I ask you to give me the best movie, you'll  choose a criterion or criteria upon which to base the decision. This choice is your opinion.

But how we rank elements along a criteria is factual.

For this reason, once we choose a criterion or a set of criteria, we can judge who is the 'best' at something. Of course, error still exists, but to confuse this process with 'opinion' is a greater error.

Again: opinion enters into this where we choose criteria.

However, ranking criteria is objective and factual.

For more on this, I suggest reading Cambridge University philosopher Jamie Whyte, from whom I've drawn these points.  The particular book in question is Crimes Against Logic... and you've commited one here.

If anyone would like more on the matter, just ask.

 

Please consider that this is just how I've dealt with one of your errors... I could cite a great deal more. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ebionite
Ebionite's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Ebionite,

Thank you for your strong desire to help me.

No problem. 

 

Quote:
I don't know why you feel as though you have to point out everytime I don't state something as an opinion, on a message board, where everything I write is written from my perspective, which automatically makes it opinion. 

It's because people on this board regard you as something of an authority and a scholar.  Which means you have, I'd argue, something of a duty to be less of a polemicist/apologist and more of an objective source of information.  Stating, point blank, that a certain publication is the "world's top academic journal" might be meant as simply an opinion by you or taken as a bit of hyperbole or as a joke by me, but there are others here who seem likely to think that this journal really is (somehow) the "best in the world" by some kind of objective measure.  Which is, of course, nonsense.

 After all, you seem to have convinced people on this forum that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is a current, mainstream theory in scholarship whereas the Apocalyptic Jesus hypothesis is some kind of rather dated and marginal idea.  Where, in fact, the opposite is the case.  I can see why you - as a polemicist/apologist for the JM idea - would like to present things in this rather bizarre and backwards fashion, but I'd argue that if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar you have a duty to present things more accurately.

Ditto for your overstatements and statements of opinion as though they are hard facts.

 All in my opinion, of course.

 Your other comments could be addressed in detail, but their tone indicates that you've already taken umbrage at my criticisms so far, despite the fact I've tried to make them as professional and reasonable as possible.  So I won't exacerbate that and will leave things as they are.  Since you say you are open to genuine criticism and since my criticism is entirely genuine, I don't want to turn this exchange into anything less constructive or more heated.

So, until next time, good night and good luck to you Rook.

Cheers, 

 

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's because people

Quote:
It's because people on this board regard you as something of an authority and a scholar.  Which means you have, I'd argue, something of a duty to be less of a polemicist/apologist and more of an objective source of information.

Understood.  But you still came off sounding like an asshole.  There were other ways to say what you needed to say without coming off as standoffish as you do.  perhaps it is just my and some others interpretation of your style of writing.  If that is the case, you'll have my apologies.

 

Quote:
Stating, point blank, that a certain publication is the "world's top academic journal" might be meant as simply an opinion by you or taken as a bit of hyperbole or as a joke by me, but there are others here who seem likely to think that this journal really is (somehow) the "best in the world" by some kind of objective measure.  Which is, of course, nonsense.

 Fair enough.  But I still feel you are nit-picking.  I will try to watch how I word things. However, I expect you to stop hijacking threads in the process.

Quote:
After all, you seem to have convinced people on this forum that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is a current, mainstream theory in scholarship whereas the Apocalyptic Jesus hypothesis is some kind of rather dated and marginal idea.

I've never claimed my position is mainstream.  The Apocalyptic Jesus is dated - it was first expressed by the proprietors of the first Jesus quest over a hundred years ago (some propositions of this are even older!).  The arguments for this position rely on such outdated readings of the Gospels.  They also ignore key verses in the so-called Davidic parts of the scriptures.  

Quote:
Where, in fact, the opposite is the case.

Only in regards to half your claim above. 

Quote:
I can see why you - as a polemicist/apologist for the JM idea - would like to present things in this rather bizarre and backwards fashion, but I'd argue that if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar you have a duty to present things more accurately.

And you have just stepped over the line with the claim I'm somehow a polemicist or apologist.  Perhaps you need to start considering you duty as a poster, such as not being an asshole and reinventing definitions of words. 

Quote:
Ditto for your overstatements and statements of opinion as though they are hard facts.

Amazing how I have ignored your continued efforts at understating my position.  Clearly you are not read on it as much as you claim. 

Quote:
All in my opinion, of course.

Right. Notice I spent the last few minutes calling you out on all your overstatements as well.  Hypocrite.

Quote:
Your other comments could be addressed in detail, but their tone indicates that you've already taken umbrage at my criticisms so far, despite the fact I've tried to make them as professional and reasonable as possible.  So I won't exacerbate that and will leave things as they are.  Since you say you are open to genuine criticism and since my criticism is entirely genuine, I don't want to turn this exchange into anything less constructive or more heated.

You should have considered your wording more carefully.  Personally I find you to be less genuine with the use of your labeling.  I really have a strong distrust of you now.  I expect you to do what you are asking of me and retract that claim. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)