Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

LegionOnomaMoi · Sep 9, 2014

Bunyip said:
ROLMAO

Mate, really?

Yes. You've pretended to be some kind of historian. You've demonstrated you aren't.

I don't need to rely on ANY argumemts to authority to establish Caeser's historicity

Yet you failed, utterly, to address this challenge:

LegionOnomaMoi said:
If I'm wrong, surely you can explain to me why have good reason to believe Caesar existed given our manuscript evidence, textual criticism, your knowledge of Greek & Latin, your familiarity with pseudepigrapha and similar forgeries, numismatics, fictional epistolary, and so on. Because I guarantee you for every argument you think you can offer I can knock it down far more convincingly than any against the historical Jesus for those familiar with ancient historical studies.

Among the many offers I gave you to show you have the faintest inkling (or ability) to defend you nebulous position:

LegionOnomaMoi said:
Feel free to confirm how pathetic the textual criticial evidence for Caesar is with whatever sources you have. I don't think you have any, really, or that you have a basic understanding of textual criticism, but pretend to do so anyway.

God - you whine about logic

Wrong. I use it. My main background is in the sciences and mathematics. History is a hobby, and languages are an area of expertise because cognitive neuroscience is.

but repeat these fatuous rebuttals

You've never offered an argument. You've spouted nonsense, "whinged" about ad hominem, and hided behind it.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

LegionOnomaMoi said:
Yes. You've pretended to be some kind of historian. You've demonstrated you aren't.

Yet you failed, utterly, to address this challenge:

Among the many offers I gave you to show you have the faintest inkling (or ability) to defend you nebulous position:

Wrong. I use it. My main background is in the sciences and mathematics. History is a hobby, and languages are an area of expertise because cognitive neuroscience is.

LOL You claimed to be a doctoral student in history.

You've never offered an argument. You've spouted nonsense, "whinged" about ad hominem, and hided behind it.

I repeat. Try editing out all of your next post other than the claim you are addressing and your rebuttal. Hopefully then you will notice that you never seem to get around to addressing an actual claim or forming a rebuttal.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

Originally Posted by*LegionOnomaMoi*

Feel free to confirm how pathetic the textual criticial evidence for Caesar

Again, your rebuttal is laughable.
Who cares how pathetic the textual criticial evidence for Caeser is? How is that supposed to matter? The textual evidence for Caeser is the tip of the iceberg. How can you have thought that the case for the historicity of Caeser would need to rely on the same weak analytical devices you must resort to for jesus?

I don't need to rely on mere textual analysis as you do for Jesus - I HAVE THOUSANDS OF ARTIFACTS, coins. buildings, documents, statues. For Caser there is physical evidence - lots of it.

LegionOnomaMoi · Sep 9, 2014

Bunyip said:
Try editing out all of your next post other than the claim you are addressing and your rebuttal.

I've offered arguments and sources. You haven't. Ever. All you've offered is opinions, ad hominem, and deflecting. I offered, from the very beginning, an entire paper which (albeit one that I wrote years ago), gives a thorough argument and many, many sources.

You've given nothing.

You cite nothing.

You misrepresent historical methods and the field of history.

You can't read ancient sources.

You haven't read modern.

You offer nothing other.

You give an opinion and you hide behind it and various methods from avoiding questions to misrepresenting me and yourself.

The only thing you haven't done is give an argument. In fact, you haven't given a coherent position.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

Yet you failed, utterly, to address this challenge:

Originally Posted by*LegionOnomaMoi*

If I'm wrong, surely you can explain to me why have good reason to believe Caesar existed given our manuscript evidence, textual criticism, your knowledge of Greek & Latin, your familiarity with pseudepigrapha and similar forgeries, numismatics, fictional epistolary, and so on. Because I guarantee you for every argument you think you can offer I can knock it down far more convincingly than any against the historical Jesus for those familiar with ancient historical studies.

And another example of not only a worthless rebuttal, but a repeated one.

Nobody needs to rely on textual criticism to establish the historicity of Julius Caeser, there is a vast body of physical evidence.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

LegionOnomaMoi said:
I've offered arguments and sources. You haven't. Ever. All you've offered is opinions, ad hominem, and deflecting. I offered, from the very beginning, an entire paper which (albeit one that I wrote years ago), gives a thorough argument and many, many sources.

You've given nothing.

You cite nothing.

You misrepresent historical methods and the field of history.

You can't read ancient sources.

You haven't read modern.

You offer nothing other.

You give an opinion and you hide behind it and various methods from avoiding questions to misrepresenting me and yourself.

The only thing you haven't done is give an argument. In fact, you haven't given a coherent position.

Try editing from your next comment everything except for the claim you are addressing and your rebuttal.

maxfreakout · Sep 9, 2014

In the last 10 pages of this thread since i started following it, there has been ZERO productive discussion about the christ myth theory. Some of the posters here seem proud of the fact that they have no idea what the debate is even about in the first place. Proud to be clueless. It doesnt suprise me that Doherty stopped posting in forums given the level of retardation that we can clearly see here. *edit*, i will leave you to carry on fighting over nothing and talking past each other:

maxfreakout · Sep 9, 2014

s2a said:
How ironic. So...your logically coherent postulation here is... what?

I can grasp that.

Soo...you are moving "forward" with...?

And you have yet even begun to deconstruct an alternate point...so?

Personal entreaties are NOT debate. EVER. In your vast resources of worldliness, you KNOW that much. Do you effort some evolved form of quackery/hypnotism for wide-eyed spectators to consume, or WILL you...EVER...make a valid point?

Ahhh. The joy of semantic-ism. WE dumb folks are really awaiting the fireworks show to follow...

Take that!

Preclude yourself, you non-thinking, unreal person!

You are forgiven....zzzzzzzzz.

Well, at least that clears that up.....

Take that! Clear "disproof" from a publisher! A publisher!!
Eat that shame spoon by spoon!

Oh, promises, promises...

but we can all hope.

If I choose to deny your existence, whom shall we seek to validate your presence here? Whom then might we call upon to validate any claims of Jesus as Savior?

I have some mythologists on speed dial, but they do need their sleep. Maybe my "historicist" co-workers may recall those names you dropped recently...

...yeah.

I'll be on that soon.

This ^ entire reply to me is meaingless waffle, you are incompetent to even address what have said

maxfreakout · Sep 9, 2014

Bunyip said:
Wow - yet another different version of your claim

Nope, same simple claim ive been making the whole time, which you are obviously not capable of understanding

Bunyip said:
As I said, all you have is a false dichotomy. Which if you ever read the authors you are referring to
they all seem to reject.

Nope, its a perfectly valid dichotomy (a person either existing or not existing)

All the authors i named are mythicists, which means that they all fall firmly on the "not existing" side of the debate

All the mythicist authors do not believe that jesus ever existed, and they all make this point abundantly clearly throughout their various books.

I proved this beyond any doubt with Doherty by reproducing several quotes from him and his publisher which clearly (beyond any possibility of doubt by anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence) demonstrate that he is a mythicist, who does not believe in the existence of Jesus.

Tragically, you have been unable to read and comprehend this basic, well-known and widely recognised fact about Doherty and the other mythicist scholars, despite me making it absolutely clear to you.

All the mythicist scholars have one thing in common - they all dissbelieve in historical Jesus.

Bunyip said:
Jesus is most likely part myth and part truth and based upon one or more real people - and that position is not mythicism.

Again you repeat this^ logically incoherent claim, despite my patient attempts to correct you. No serious person has ever tried to make this claim.

outhouse · Sep 9, 2014

maxfreakout said:
It doesnt suprise me that Doherty stopped posting in forums given the level of retardation that we can clearly see here. This thread is nothing but dicksizing and fake machismo BS, i will leave you to carry on fighting over nothing and talking past each other:

It was in a forum where education levels were much higher on average.

The problem is most mythicst have no real education on the topic and refuse education.

outhouse · Sep 9, 2014

maxfreakout said:
All the mythicist scholars have one thing in common - they all dissbelieve in historical Jesus.

.

There is only 2 major credible scholars. Price and Carrier

There are a few more on the fence leaning towards mythicism that run blogs. But they remain knowledgeable and provide a positive atmosphere.

The people in this thread have been kicked out of higher educated forums.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

maxfreakout said:
Nope, same simple claim ive been making the whole time, which you are obviously not capable of understanding

Your definitions of mythicism started as the claim that Jesus was 100% mythological, then transformed into the claim that there was zero evidence for a historical Jesus.

At no point did your made up definitions conform to what mythicism actually means. And at no point could you support your made up definitions with a quote.

Nope, its a perfectly valid dichotomy (a person either existing or not existing)

It is a childishly transparent false dichotomy -Jesus could he based upon one or more real people and be substantially mythological. You pretend that the most rational position is impossible - but gave no real explanation.

All the authors i named are mythicists, which means that they all fall firmly on the "not existing" side of the debate

All the mythicist authors do not believe that jesus ever existed, and they all make this point abundantly clearly throughout their various books.

No they don't. For all of your mud flinging about how others don't understand what mythicism is - you have it wrong. A mythicist can believe that there is some evidence for a historical Jesus and that Jesus may be based on one ormore real people.
Look at the definitions posted here from wiki, and see for yourself.

That is why I kept asking you for a quote - because NONE OF THE 'MYTHICISTS' YOU IDENTIFIED claim that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, or that Jesus is 100% mythological.

I proved this beyond any doubt with Doherty by reproducing several quotes from him and his publisher which clearly (beyond any possibility of doubt by anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence) demonstrate that he is a mythicist, who does not believe in the existence of Jesus.

Tragically, you have been unable to read and comprehend this basic, well-known and widely recognised fact about Doherty and the other mythicist scholars, despite me making it absolutely clear to you.

All the mythicist scholars have one thing in common - they all dissbelieve in historical Jesus.

Again you repeat this^ logically incoherent claim, despite my patient attempts to correct you. No serious person has ever tried to make this claim.

Bunyip · Sep 9, 2014

LegiononomaMoi

I can only imagine that you come here too drunk to think straight, you endlessly insult my intelligence, my honesty and my knowledge, and yet make no sense yourself.

A few day ago you posted this;

"The evidence for modern history is vastly superior to that we have for ancient history. This includes Caesar, Socrates, and others. It includes Jesus. Contrary to idiotic and uninformed statements which are more or less equivalent to "we haven't a shred of evidence for the historical Jesus", we have more evidence for the historical Jesus than virtually anybody from antiquity.

That's my point."

However a couple of pages back you said the exact opposite and then railed against me in post after post because you believed I was attacking a claim that you had already conceeded;

Originally Posted by*LegionOnomaMoi*

"But Caesar was a historical figure, and obviously so.*He's one of the few for which we have more evidence than we have for Jesus"

You can not even follow your own argument.

maxfreakout · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
Your definitions of mythicism started as the claim that Jesus was 100% mythological

This ^ is false, i said nothing about percentages, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now, if you havent been able to realise that i said nothing about percentages after being reminded three times, then you clearly lack the brain capacity to engage in meaningful conversation.

Speaking of a person as less than fully real is meaningless, a person is either real or unreal, there are no other options.

Mythicism is the claim that Jesus didnt exist, every mythicist agrees on this basic point, including Doherty.

Bunyip said:
then transformed into the claim that there was zero evidence for a historical Jesus

This ^ is also false, i said nothing about evidence, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now. If you cannot read my posts, then it is not possible to engage in meaningful discussion.

I never defined mythicism in terms of percentages or in terms of evidence, yet you keep repeating that i did (without ever providing quotes). You must be very slow to learn things.

Bunyip said:
At no point did your made up definitions conform to what mythicism actually means.

Mythicism just means the idea that Jesus didnt exist, it is very simple indeed. It is amazing that you are unable to understand such a simple, basic point.

Mythicism = no historical Jesus
Historicism = historical Jesus

it is that simple, any mythicist book would tell you this such as Doherty's book which you claimed to have read even though you obviously haven't.

Bunyip said:
And at no point could you support your made up definitions with a quote.

This ^ is also false, i provided several quotes which clearly prove my point that mythicism is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus, such as the following quote from Doherty's book which i have posted multiple times:

" "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed" "

So as you can see from this quote, Doherty agrees with me and with everyone else about what "mythicism" means, it is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus. It really isnt difficult to understand, try to think clearly.

Bunyip said:
Jesus could he based upon one or more real people and be substantially mythological.

If Jesus was one single real person, that is historicism (ie the existence of historical Jesus)

If Jesus was anything other than one single real person, that is mythicism (ie the denial of the historical Jesus)

These are the only 2 possibilities in this debate, it's one or the other

Bunyip said:
A mythicist can believe that there is some evidence for a historical Jesus

This ^ is irrelevant and nonsensical, whether a mythicist believes that "there is some evidence for a historical Jesus" or not, they believe that the historical Jesus himself did not exist. Every mythicist writer confirms this, such as Doherty as in the quote i just provided from his book.

Here is Doherty's quote again, where he defines what mythicism is:

" "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed" "

Bunyip said:
and that Jesus may be based on one ormore real people.

No mythicist believes that Jesus was one single real person, because that would be historicism and not mythicism. As Doherty points out, mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed

Bunyip said:
Look at the definitions posted here from wiki, and see for yourself.

wiki defines it in exactly the same way, as the claim that historical Jesus did not exist

Bunyip said:
That is why I kept asking you for a quote - because NONE OF THE 'MYTHICISTS' YOU IDENTIFIED claim that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, or that Jesus is 100% mythological.

again you bring up this fabricated reference to evidence and to percentages, which has no relevance to what i am saying.

I already provided multiple quotes that prove what i am saying, such as the quote from Doherty where he says that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed"

Did you understand that? Doherty says in his book that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed". It is that simple.

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

maxfreakout said:
This ^ is false, i said nothing about percentages, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now, if you havent been able to realise that i said nothing about percentages after being reminded three times, then you clearly lack the brain capacity to engage in meaningful conversation. [ /quote]

Are you denying defining mythicism as the claim that Jesus is 100% mythical? Because I can sure as hell quote YOU buddy.

Speaking of a person as less than fully real is meaningless, a person is either real or unreal, there are no other options.

Mythicism is the claim that Jesus didnt exist, every mythicist agrees on this basic point, including Doherty.

This ^ is also false, i said nothing about evidence, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now. If you cannot read my posts, then it is not possible to engage in meaningful discussion.

I never defined mythicism in terms of percentages or in terms of evidence, yet you keep repeating that i did (without ever providing quotes). You must be very slow to learn things.

Mythicism just means the idea that Jesus didnt exist, it is very simple indeed. It is amazing that you are unable to understand such a simple, basic point.

Mythicism = no historical Jesus
Historicism = historical Jesus

it is that simple, any mythicist book would tell you this such as Doherty's book which you claimed to have read even though you obviously haven't.

This ^ is also false, i provided several quotes which clearly prove my point that mythicism is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus, such as the following quote from Doherty's book which i have posted multiple times:

So as you can see from this quote, Doherty agrees with me and with everyone else about what "mythicism" means, it is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus. It really isnt difficult to understand, try to think clearly.

If Jesus was one single real person, that is historicism (ie the existence of historical Jesus)

If Jesus was anything other than one single real person, that is mythicism (ie the denial of the historical Jesus)

These are the only 2 possibilities in this debate, it's one or the other

This ^ is irrelevant and nonsensical, whether a mythicist believes that "there is some evidence for a historical Jesus" or not, they believe that the historical Jesus himself did not exist. Every mythicist writer confirms this, such as Doherty as in the quote i just provided from his book.

Here is Doherty's quote again, where he defines what mythicism is:

No mythicist believes that Jesus was one single real person, because that would be historicism and not mythicism. As Doherty points out, mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed

wiki defines it in exactly the same way, as the claim that historical Jesus did not exist

again you bring up this fabricated reference to evidence and to percentages, which has no relevance to what i am saying.

I already provided multiple quotes that prove what i am saying, such as the quote from Doherty where he says that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed"

Did you understand that? Doherty says in his book that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed". It is that simple.

Click to expand...

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

Max

Are you denying giving that 100% myth definition? If so I can quote you.

Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

maxfreakout · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
Max

Are you denying giving that 100% myth definition? If so I can quote you.

Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

you are the only person who brought the irrelevant idea of "percentages" and "evidence" into the conversation. It demonstrates your total lack of understanding of what "mythicism" means. The only times i have ever mentioned such a stupid idea is when i was directly replying to you. I never defined mythicism in this way, i have provided my definition multiple times.

i have been absolutely clear about what historicism and mythicism are, many times. Here it is again:

Historicism = historical Jesus
Mythicism = no historical Jesus

Here is another quote which proves my point, from the publisher's blurb for Doherty's book:

Doherty's book 'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man' is a new and revised expansion of that work. The product of almost three decades of study, it presents a case of unprecedented depth and lucidity for the non-existence of an historical Jesus.

Is that clear enough for you? If you are too stupid to understand that, even when it is pointed out so clearly to you, then there is not much point trying to explain it any clearer to you. If you dont understand by now, you never will.

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

maxfreakout said:
you are the only person who brought the irrelevant idea of "percentages" and "evidence" into the conversation. It demonstrates your total lack of understanding of what "mythicism" means. The only times i have ever mentioned such a stupid idea is when i was directly replying to you. I never defined mythicism in this way, i have provided my definition multiple times.

i have been absolutely clear about what historicism and mythicism are, many times. Here it is again:

Historicism = historical Jesus
Mythicism = no historical Jesus

Here is another quote which proves my point, from the publisher's blurb for Doherty's book:
Is that clear enough for you? If you are too stupid to understand that, even when it is pointed out so clearly to you, then there is not much point trying to explain it any clearer to you. If you dont understand by now, you never will.

So that 's a yes right? You want me to quote you using that 100% def7nition? Are you sure you want to make a liar of yourself?

Bunyip · Sep 10, 2014

Max

All of your schoolyard insults are nothing to me -do you want the quote?

Calling me names is easy, I can and will back my claims, you can not.

LegionOnomaMoi · Sep 10, 2014

Bunyip said:
LegiononomaMoi

I can only imagine that you come here too drunk to think straight

Wow. You are that incapable of reasoning? Let me walk you through informal, basic reasoning:

A few day ago you posted this

This is what you quoted:

"The evidence for modern history is vastly superior to that we have for ancient history. This includes Caesar, Socrates, and others. It includes Jesus. Contrary to idiotic and uninformed statements which are more or less equivalent to "we haven't a shred of evidence for the historical Jesus", we have more evidence for the historical Jesus than virtually anybody from antiquity.

That's my point."

Then you state:

However a couple of pages back you said the exact opposite and then railed against me in post after post because you believed I was attacking a claim that you had already conceeded

And quote me saying:

But Caesar was a historical figure, and obviously so.*He's one of the few for which we have more evidence than we have for Jesus

How utterly, completely, and pathetically bereft of basic reasoning skills and logical analysis are you to conclude that there is a conflict between the proposition that we have vastly superior evidence for modern history and that there is clear evidence for some figures (and historical events) from antiquity? We have great evidence to suggest that Caesar, Jesus, Socrates, and other ancient persons existed. We have vastly more to suggest that JFK, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Nelson Mandela, etc., existed. That I said Caesar is obviously an historical figure doesn't mean that those for which we have videographic, photographic, and similarly clear evidence is comparable.

So you are incapable of distinguishing between incompatible claims, but are capable of undermining your own claims about historical research: either modern historical data is superior, and thus we have reason to doubt evidence from antiquity, or it isn't. I didn't set up such a dichotomy. Your failures to make sound inferences did.

You can not even follow your own argument.

I can. I did. You not only didn't, you demonstrated an inability to understand basic logic. Congratulations.

Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

Veteran Member

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Veteran Member

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Atheistically

Atheistically

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Active Member

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Active Member

pro scapegoat

pro scapegoat

Veteran Member