I don't say that in the post you linked to? This still stands:
"First you called me close minded, when I explained I am listening to the opinions of apologists (those are people who believe what you do), you didn't say, "oh good then". YOu moved the goalpost and used it as a chance for an attack. The response was genuine and attempting to tell you I DO explore the opinions of people who I disagree with. All things you accused me of.
So it certainly wasn't "bragging"? You moved the goalpost to make an attack."
"you" means you.
No, I did not do that.
What is evidence may I ask... and what evidence do you have, which is actually more than circumstantial, and thus any different to what opposing scholars have?
Of course you called me close minded. What evidence? The evidence every time I post any of it you run away using some apologist excuse?
The lack of any evidence of anything supernatural. The extensive evidence the Bible is highly syncretic mythology from comparative analysis, from studying the literary styles and literary devices uses (only fictive), all theology is found in earlier religions and all religions are made up myths? Plus archaeological evidence clearly demonstrating scripture is not historical but an enlarged story.
I'll listen for your response to the question above.
Beating the chest isn't what I am interested in. Let's look at the real facts.
Every time actual peer-reviewed scholarship has been presented you run away using apologist fallacies like "they are non-believers....". Right so when historians write about Greek Gods or Hinduism and call them legendary mythologies is that just because they are not believers and being non-believers how could they know Zeus isn't real??? Yes all apologetics is that ridiculous.
Most likely true to whom?
Most likely true to people who understand what the actual historical knowledge is. Rome did not invent Jesus and that can be demonstrated by Roman historians. Jesus is a Jewish version of a Hellenistic/Persian savior deity. That can be demonstrated by historical facts.
Lol. I'm not referring to this thread B. Check all your past posts on scholarship.
Now you are just bickering aimlessly to avoid a loss. This is a forum not a bad relationship. You called me closed minded because I only post scholarship and not fundamentalist crank. So I mentioned I have read this nonsense from several theologians and listed them. To which you said I was "bragging". Goalpost = moved. That isn't going to change no matter how you spin this.
I'm sorry, but that view is expected when one can only see what's in a closed box, or closed mind.
I don't repeat myself. I leave that to you.
I say what I have to say, and move on - namely that scholars have different opinions.
You are the one sir, in denial, when you dismiss that fact, to claim that only certain scholars' opinions matter, since you agree with them.
All the others just come from crack heads, who need to find another job in another field... one that doesn't involve education ... in my own words.
And now we circle back to this. Even though I already mentioned I'm very familiar with fundamentalist apologetics. Every single line is completely debunkable. As you would imagine Islam also has quite a large collection of apologetics. They too are completely debunkable. It's like this with all religious claims.
Scholars do NOT have different opinions when it comes to believing myths are real. Theologians in Islam start out with the assumption the Quran is the true word of God. Same with Christian theologians. They are interested in what the words mean. They do not study comparative religion, mythology, historical vs fictive writing styles used by Jewish/Greek authors, archaeology or even entertain the possibility that their religion is just another myth.
But historians do.
And the vast consensus is it is a myth. The evidence is also vast.
"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that
that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.
No. We aren’t interested in that.
When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can
really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his
actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.
Here I will summarize the best arguments for historicity and the logic behind the
best case for it. And this only means mundane historicity; not the Gospel Jesus, but the Jesus of honest mainstream scholarship. I am most interested in finding out if I have left any good arguments out. So please add more in comments, if any you think remain that aren’t ridiculous and can be taken seriously by mainstream experts. Likewise if you think the logic of any argument I do present can be better formulated."
More words. They come easy to you, don't they.
They mean nothing to me. Let's see you do more than talk. Back up your claims with actual evidence.
You are saying Paul was not a scholar?
They mean nothing to you because you are not interested in actual dialogue, truth, evidence or anything that goes against supernatural beliefs you have formed. This is ironic because in the past I posted scholarship and you had nothing to say. No evidence to counter it, nothing. Just beliefs. Well so do Islamic believers. And Hindu. The evidence against Christianity is the same as those.
Paul is not a historian. He was a Jewish writer. He made ridiculous claims about seeing ghost Jesus. So did Muhammad about an angel who updated Christianity in a big way.
So did Joe Smith and another angel. Yes, people like to make religious lies in what they think is a greater good. Paul's theology just happened to be directly from Hellenism and Persian religions. Both nations who occupied Israel for 500 years right before Christianity. Huh?
This coming from a man who claims to be better in understanding and knowledge than anyone who doesn't believe what he does. Lol.
Now just a straight lie? Wait this doesn't even make sense? So are you now saying you are more versed than me in Biblical historicity? Which is weird because you have never ever mentioned reading or listening to anyone in the field?
Or do you imagine you can read scripture, apologetics and talk to church leaders and just magically know historical information that fundamentalists never seem to know?
Why would you know the field if you just hand wave it off with "they don't believe" (which is all you ever do).
Well maybe I'm mistaken. Please list the historical scholarship you have studied. I won't say that you are "bragging".
You want someone to take your words seriously, over someone who never even claimed to see and get messages from a ghost... which you falsely claim they did? Seriously? ...and you consider yourself a Biblical scholar?
Yup, Paul only saw ghost Jesus.
Paul confirms this first-hand. Gal. 1.11-12 he learned the gospel only from a hallucinated encounter (a revelation) whom he experienced "within himself".
But he also said God revealed (the gospel) through the spirit, 1Cor. 2.10. In 1Thess. 5.20 Paul says they test the spirits that communicate with them.
Spirits communicating with people are ghosts. Like it or not.
Paul has many hallucinations including a trip to heaven. Oh he spoke to God as well. He heard voices and conversed with them.
Yeah that's real. Great evidence. Great source!
Christians regarded early books like Daniel as inspired scripture which has teachings from God through visions and DREAMS!?
You should have stuck with "ghost". Dreams? You think this is real?
Oh, early Christianity and these revelations perfectly aligns with known anthropological models of religious revitalization movements. Which are all made up folklore.
I don't care who takes me seriously. Some people will embrace evidence and some will only use confirmation bias. I cannot control that. Anytime you have actual evidence (as in not from a dream or anecdotal series of visions) feel free. I am always open to reasonable evidence. That's what being open minded means. Having your mind made up that a mythology is real (meanwhile 2/3 of all other religious mythology believers believe a completely different story - Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on) is not being open minded.
