To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[Jayhawker Soule]

Any evidence?

I'm not sure if your patience is to be lauded or pitied.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Any evidence?

Msg #615. If you ask me again, I'll tell you the same.

How about you. Any evidence for the historical Jesus?

 

[Quagmire]

I posted it today, to Jayhawker. He replied by posting some of his own (purported) evidence.

Do you really want me to go and look up the message number for you?

Ah, do you mean this?

Paul's silence. The gospels, especially the synoptics. Secular silence about Jesus. Mankind's long history of hero-building and hero-worship.

Paul's silence.

Which has been explained and refuted countless times in this and other threads.

The gospels, especially the synoptics.

What about them?

Secular silence about Jesus.

Which has also been explained and refuted.

Mankind's long history of hero-building and hero-worship.

If this is any criteria for disregarding any historical figure that might (even loosely) fall into the category of "hero", then I suppose we'll have to discount the existence of Alexander the Great, Spartacus, Julius Caesar, Boudicca, and, for that matter, practically every historical figure we know of.


edit: so in other words, you have no evidence. Or, your definition of "evidence" as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own.

 

[fallingblood]

Blood, would you mind actually reading Paul's letters and then getting back to me?

I have read Paul's letters in English, as well as struggled through them in Greek. I have read various commentaries on Paul, taken various courses on Paul (including one that focused on just the letters of Paul), as well as read historical reconstructions of Paul. I have studied Paul in both conservative, moderate, and liberal sources. I have studied both Christian and Jewish scholars on Paul. Not to mention, I have watched a plethora of lectures and documentaries on Paul, (as well as listened to dozens of lectures on Paul).

So yes, I have read Paul.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree. It's why I've been making my case with hard evidence and rational argumentation -- all the while trying to prod others here to put aside the ad hominems and join the actual discussion.

So I'm glad that you and I agree on this matter. God truly is in His heaven.

You are not making a case. You are not showing any evidence, or a rational argument. In fact, I addressed all of your points, as well as your rebuttal, and pointed out that there was not a single shred of evidence in your argument. And then instead of actually giving a rebuttal to what I said, you made the ridiculous comment that I should go read Paul.

Everyone is asking you to provide some evidence. However, all you have shown is nothing more than you have faith in belief. When asked about evidence, you dodge it, and then state what you believe, without actually providing any evidence.

Case in point, you have failed to provide a single other god-man who supposedly was crucified. You stated that all god-men were crucified; however, you have yet been able to provide any evidence for that.

You have also failed to provide any evidence that we should think of the Gospels as fiction. Or that they intended to write fiction. You haven't provided any evidence, at all. You have only stated what you believed, and never provided any evidence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, do you mean this?

Yep. That is one of the many messages in which I provided evidence for my position. Thank you for finally locating it.

Which has been explained and refuted countless times in this and other threads.

No, it's never been refuted. If it had been refuted, then I would no longer believe it to be so. Yes?

What about them?

Sigh. You're really going to make me repeat myself again and again about this?

The synoptics. Written as fiction. Try and refute that. If it's incorrect, why can't you or anyone else in this thread provide any evidence to refute it?

Curious question. Reveals a lot, I think.

Which has also been explained and refuted.

It has neither been explained nor refuted. If it had been, I would know. But if you'd like to offer evidence that it has been explained and refuted, I'll be happy to examine that evidence. Do you have any? Can you provide it?

If this is any criteria for disregarding any historical figure that might (even loosely) fall into the category of "hero", then I suppose we'll have to discount the existence of Alexander the Great, Spartacus, Julius Caesar, Boudicca, and, for that matter, practically every historical figure we know of.

Such a tired old argument. How many times has Blood, all on his own, dragged it out and waved it wanly about. Yikes.

Let's investigate the nature of knowledge. Whatever that word 'discount' means to you, let's study it. We can examine the error of embracing certainty about any truth at all, much less ancient historical truth.

Did Alexander really cut the Gordian Knot? Did he even see it? Did it even exist? Did Alex really burn the Persian Temple? Was it because he was drunk or just in a bad mood?

In other words, what do you know about Alexander, and what do you 'discount'?

If you 'discount' Alexander altogether, it's certainly no skin off my nose. I may disagree with you, but I sure wouldn't become hostile with you for holding such an opinion. Why would I? What does it hurt me if Alexander didn't really exist?

edit: so in other words, you have no evidence. Or, your definition of "evidence" as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own.

I'm reminded of the Young Earth Creationists.

"Where is your evidence?" the YECer exclaims.

"Well, there's the whale's pelvis," I answer. "Why would a whale have a pelvis except that its ancestors were once land-dwellers?"

"Ha!" the YECer shouts. "See what I mean! You have no evidence. I knew you couldn't provide any evidence for your stupid theory."

"But I did provide evidence. Remember the whale's pelvis?"

"Oh, I see," the YECer answers. "So you have no evidence. Or your definition of 'evidence' as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own!"

So anyway, Quagmire, we can work our way through this. All you need to do is give me a precise, contained-within-quotation-marks definition of this thing which you want from me. Define 'evidence' in your own words.

I dare you. I absolutely positively dare you to attempt it. No YECer has ever taken me up on the challenge. Will you?

You say I offer no evidence. So define 'evidence' then. If it is possible for me to provide the thing which you define, you have my promise that I will provide it in my response to your message.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So yes, I have read Paul.

So you have no idea why I asked you to go and read Paul? My point was entirely lost on you?

I don't know, Blood. I think I'm just too polite to say it more directly than that.

But here's my best try:

Imagine that we are in real life. I am an ancient but decrepit professor -- maybe even senile -- to whom you must present your dissertation. All your professors are at the table, but I am the guy you have to address and convince. If you speak to me in an ugly way, if you spend your time insulting my senility, you will lose your degree, the respect of all those professors, and eventually your own self-respect.

Now, with that image in mind, write me a message, here in this thread, about the historical Jesus.

You have a good mind and you seem to have some knowledge about this. Argue the issue itself, with civility. If you can do that, you could become a serious debater.

If you can't, well... go and read Paul's letter and then get back to me.

 

[Quagmire]

Yep. That is one of the many messages in which I provided evidence for my position. Thank you for finally locating it.

Thank you for the friggin Easter Egg hunt.

No, it's never been refuted.

"LALALALALALALA if I don't look at it, it doesn't count LALALALALALALALA"

If it had been refuted, then I would no longer believe it to be so. Yes?

No. With your obsessive emotional attachment to this issue, it probably wouldn't make any difference what anybody showed you.

Sigh. You're really going to make me repeat myself again and again about this?

Sigh, You're really going to repeat an argument, based on an uneducated assumption, and a complete absence of understanding of ancient literature, even though it's been shown for the baseless fantasy that it is again and again and again?

The synoptics. Written as fiction.

Wrong. This is one of those uneducated assumptions I was talking about.

Try and refute that.

You mean "Try and make me consider any refutation of this". Fallingblood already tried to show you why applying the term "fiction" to the Gospels is inaccurate at best, regardless of the historical reliability of the content. You either ignored that or you're just not capable of grasping most of what he tried to explain to you..

If it's incorrect, why can't you or anyone else in this thread provide any evidence to refute it?

It's been refuted, no "evidence" required. If someone were to try and argue that Shakespeare's works were a collection of metaphorical prophecies, how would someone go about convincing them that they were just plays?

You don't understand the genre. Or rather I should say you refuse to. Until you realize that, there's no way to have a discussion with you about it.

Curious question. Reveals a lot, I think.

It would take quite a lot to reveal anything to you.

It has neither been explained nor refuted.

"LALALALALALALALALA" Isn't the roof of your mouth getting tired?

If it had been, I would know.

But if you'd like to offer evidence that it has been explained and refuted, I'll be happy to examine that evidence.

No, you'll be happy to continue going "LALALALALALA" I don't see nuthin'!"

Do you have any? Can you provide it?

Have it? Yes. Can I provide it? Yes. Can I somehow present it in such a way that it would be impossible for you to go "LALALALALALALA, don't see nuthin!'" and just ignore it? No. Enough people in here have tried to already.

Which is why you're really here, huh? To punish people for trying to deprive you of your ace in the hole.

Even though it isn't an ace at all, it's a joker.

Such a tired old argument. How many times has Blood, all on his own, dragged it out and waved it wanly about. Yikes.

LOL! It's almost like your're proud of the fact that it's impossible to educate you.

Let's investigate the nature of knowledge.

"Investigate" and "Knowledge": two more concepts you obviously have no interest in.

Whatever that word 'discount' means to you,

When I say "discount" I mean the same thing you mean when you say "disagree", ie., dismiss out of hand.

let's study it.

"Study", there's another one.

We can examine the error of embracing certainty about any truth at all, much less ancient historical truth.

No one in this thread has been doing that or anything like that except you.

Did Alexander really cut the Gordian Knot? Did he even see it? Did it even exist? Did Alex really burn the Persian Temple? Was it because he was drunk or just in a bad mood?

The salient point is, is this really grounds for you to dismiss his existence as myth?

In other words, what do you know about Alexander, and what do you 'discount'?

Not his existence.

If you 'discount' Alexander altogether, it's certainly no skin off my nose. I may disagree with you, but I sure wouldn't become hostile with you for holding such an opinion. Why would I? What does it hurt me if Alexander didn't really exist?

So you're saying if some idiot comes in to our forums saying "I don't believe Alexander the Great existed because I believe he was based on a previous Alexander that no one has ever heard and who I just made up" we should all just nod?

I'm reminded of the Young Earth Creationists.

"Where is your evidence?" the YECer exclaims.

"Well, there's the whale's pelvis," I answer. "Why would a whale have a pelvis except that its ancestors were once land-dwellers?"

"Ha!" the YECer shouts. "See what I mean! You have no evidence. I knew you couldn't provide any evidence for your stupid theory."

"But I did provide evidence. Remember the whale's pelvis?"

"Oh, I see," the YECer answers. "So you have no evidence. Or your definition of 'evidence' as well as your ideas about what qualifies as evidence are uniquely your own!"

Ah! So this is where you learned this debate tactic: by arguing with YECs. thanks for clearing that up. You must have spent quite a bit of time interacting with them and taking notes.

So anyway, Quagmire, we can work our way through this. All you need to do is give me a precise, contained-within-quotation-marks definition of this thing which you want from me. Define 'evidence' in your own words.

Something or some things that point to a logical conclusion. As opposed to stubborn insistence on the legitimacy of a position based solely on an emotional preference or need.

I dare you. I absolutely positively dare you to attempt it. No YECer has ever taken me up on the challenge. Will you?

I'm not a YECer. Why do Hari Krishnas always mistake me for a YECer?

You say I offer no evidence.

I also say the sky is blue.

So define 'evidence' then. If it is possible for me to provide the thing which you define, you have my promise that I will provide it in my response to your message.

Have at it.

 

[Quagmire]

So you have no idea why I asked you to go and read Paul? My point was entirely lost on you?

I think everybody in here got that: it was a prissy, passive/aggressive little ad hominem.

I don't know, Blood. I think I'm just too polite to say it more directly than that.

I don't think it's courtesy that's keeping you from speaking directly.

But here's my best try:

Imagine that we are in real life. I am an ancient but decrepit professor --

OK, I'm halfway there.

maybe even senile --

2/3rds now.

to whom you must present your dissertation. All your professors are at the table, but I am the guy you have to address and convince.

OMG. I hope there's an ancient trade school nearby.

If you speak to me in an ugly way, if you spend your time insulting my senility, you will lose your degree, the respect of all those professors, and eventually your own self-respect.

Thing is that if someone is truly senile, the only options anyone has when dealing with them is to either humor them, or try to get them to see that they aren't seeing things clearly.

That first option is easier by far, of course, but the second one is much more honest (if hopeless).

Now, with that image in mind, write me a message, here in this thread, about the historical Jesus.

I will: "It's obviously over your head". That would be the message I would write if I were interested in sparing the rest of the panel a lot of wasted time and pointless aggravation.

You have a good mind and you seem to have some knowledge about this.

This is a lot like a turtle telling a cheetah "You seem to have some skill at running".

Argue the issue itself, with civility. If you can do that, you could become a serious debater.

There's really only one person in this thread who needs this sort of lecture, and it isn't Fallingblood.

If you can't, well... go and read Paul's letter and then get back to me.

"So I can ignore everything you have to say all over again. LALALALALALALA"

 

[fallingblood]

So you have no idea why I asked you to go and read Paul? My point was entirely lost on you?

I don't know, Blood. I think I'm just too polite to say it more directly than that.

But here's my best try:

Imagine that we are in real life. I am an ancient but decrepit professor -- maybe even senile -- to whom you must present your dissertation. All your professors are at the table, but I am the guy you have to address and convince. If you speak to me in an ugly way, if you spend your time insulting my senility, you will lose your degree, the respect of all those professors, and eventually your own self-respect.

Now, with that image in mind, write me a message, here in this thread, about the historical Jesus.

You have a good mind and you seem to have some knowledge about this. Argue the issue itself, with civility. If you can do that, you could become a serious debater.

If you can't, well... go and read Paul's letter and then get back to me.

So, instead of dealing with I have already presented, you would rather instead try to make us play make believe? I'm not playing some childish game with you. I addressed your so called evidence (which was nothing more than you stating that you believe a certain way, which I am fine with. As long as you don't try to push it on others. If you have evidence to back up your belief, that's fine. But when it's based on blind faith, then I really don't feel like hearing it as if it is something I should really consider).

Just as a side note, I am quite a serious debater. In high school, I was a member of Student Congress, and Debate, and lettered in both. I have continued that in college as well. I am well aware of how to debate a subject. And it isn't dodging, or refusing to actually address the subject. And it certainly doesn't involve ignoring your opponents rebuttal.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So, instead of dealing with I have already presented, you would rather instead try to make us play make believe? I'm not playing some childish game with you.

OK then. Read Paul's letters (again?) and get back to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I came here to discuss the (non)historical Jesus. Since that seems impossible at the moment, I won't be continuing with the attempt now -- not unless a debater steps forward who would like to actually address the issue with me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I came here to discuss the (non)historical Jesus. Since that seems impossible at the moment, I won't be continuing with the attempt now -- not unless a debater steps forward who would like to actually address the issue with me.

Everyone's afraid of you, AmbiguousGuy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you have evidence to back up your belief, that's fine.

That his is an unevidenced fringe position concerns him not in the least. He has (and seeks to propagate) the delusion of having already won the day and arrogantly assumes that none of us are smart enough to have noticed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Everyone's afraid of you, AmbiguousGuy.

That or there is an understandable aversion to ... :banghead3

 

[fallingblood]

I came here to discuss the (non)historical Jesus. Since that seems impossible at the moment, I won't be continuing with the attempt now -- not unless a debater steps forward who would like to actually address the issue with me.

That is nothing more than a cop out. I offered discussion and you choose to play childish games instead. So please stop saying you want discussion, because you don't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Everyone's afraid of you, AmbiguousGuy.

Yeah, I just wish they wouldn't hate me for it.

But we always hate what we fear. I guess it's just part of the deal.

Pity me, Angellous.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, I just wish they wouldn't hate me for it.

But we always hate what we fear. I guess it's just part of the deal.

Pity me, Angellous.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, I just wish they wouldn't hate me for it.

But we always hate what we fear. I guess it's just part of the deal.

Pity me, ...

Blagojevich? Is that really you?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Bart D. Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

Checkah matah!