Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Quagmire]

"what I am fascinated by is the beliefs and the sureness of those that claim to be in the know."

If that were true you'd pay at least a little bit of attention to what they have to say.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then what made you think I was talking about you?

I'm just saying that not all of us who doubt or deny the historicity of Jesus think that way. I don't want others to get that impression. I would still have the same spiritual worldview that I do now if he did exist.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm just saying that not all of us who doubt or deny the historicity of Jesus think that way. I don't want others to get that impression. I would still have the same spiritual worldview that I do now if he did exist.

We weren't talking about people who doubt or deny the historicity, we were talking about people who deny the evidence (as opposed to trying to refute it) or who lie about history outright.

There's a difference.

Theoretically anyway.

 

[steeltoes]

We weren't talking about people who doubt or deny the historicity, we were talking about people who deny the evidence (as opposed to trying to refute it) or who lie about history outright.

There's a difference.

Theoretically anyway.

Examples?

 

[Quagmire]

Examples?

No thanks, you've provided enough already.

 

[Bunyip]

We weren't talking about people who doubt or deny the historicity, we were talking about people who deny the evidence (as opposed to trying to refute it) or who lie about history outright.

There's a difference.

Theoretically anyway.

Is there? Could you provide an example of the evidence that people deny?

 

[Quagmire]

Is there?

So you don't understand the difference between someone who examines the evidence and rejects it and someone who refuses to even acknowledge it's existence?

Could you provide an example of the evidence that people deny?

Sure. And if that were the topic of this thread, I would.

 

[Bunyip]

So you don't understand the difference between someone who examines the evidence and rejects it and someone who refuses to even acknowledge it's existence?

I am asking a genuine and sincere question of you. YesI understand perfectly well the difference - in this case as far as I know there is very little evidence to refuse to acknowledge.

In this case I don't believe that there is any evidence being rejected - hence I asked you for an example.


Sure. And if that were the topic of this thread, I would.[/quote]

You made the argument that people reject such evidencefor fear that Jesus is real, and so given that there is an insinuation lf cowardice and dishonesty on the part of atheists -I am asking you to support your argument withan example.

(FYI, Like most atheists I accept that Jesus probably existed - so what you need is evidence of his divinity or suchlike)

Thanks

 

[Quagmire]

I am asking a genuine and sincere question of you. YesI understand perfectly well the difference -

The why did you ask if there was one?

in this case as far as I know there is very little evidence to refuse to acknowledge.

In this case I don't believe that there is any evidence being rejected - hence I asked you for an example.

In the wrong thread. :yes:

You made the argument that people reject such evidencefor fear that Jesus is real, and so given that there is an insinuation lf cowardice and dishonesty on the part of atheists -I am asking you to support your argument withan example.

Sorry but this is such a pathetic strawman any answer I could give you would be too good for it.

 

[outhouse]

In this case I don't believe that there is any evidence being rejected - hence I asked you for an example.

Mythicist reject everything, with no reasons posted thta make sense.

How about many differet groups of people from diferent geographic locations all describing a man who was martyred at Passover in front of hundreds of thousands of witnesses, of which no one really questioned his historicity at all.

What we have is Romans making a deity out of a one of their oppressed peasants, from a people they did not even really care for. They were viewed as desperate stubborn trouble makers. Now one of two things happened, Either they were stuck with the event and martyred man and wrote about him building him into something everyone would want to worship, OR they made it all up, and so far no replacement hypothesis explains the evidence we are left with.

 

[Bunyip]

The why did you ask if there was one?



In the wrong thread. :yes:



Sorry but this is such a pathetic strawman any answer I could give you would be too good for it.

Wow! You are a staff member. You made an argument criticising atheists and when asked politely for a example you respond with an insulting attack.

Nice.

I guess you get to be as insulting as you like right?

 

[Willamena]

Why would Romans make a deity out of someone they oppressed, building him into something everyone would want to worship? Equally, why would they make that up?

 

[Willamena]

Wow! You are a staff member.

Proof that things are as they appear.

 

[Quagmire]

:no:

Wow! You are a staff member. You made an argument criticising atheists and when asked politely for a example you respond with an insulting attack.

I made an observation that people who deny evidence and lie about history do so out of fear.

YOU are the one that equated all that to "atheists".

Nice.

I guess you get to be as insulting as you like right?

I just tell the truth. If the truth insults you, guess who's fault that is.

And pointing to my staff badge is just a cheap shot used by desperate people who want to blame someone else for the foot in their mouth.

It's your foot, it's your mouth. All I did was get out of the way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wow! You are a staff member. You made an argument criticising atheists and when asked politely for a example you respond with an insulting attack.

Nice.

I guess you get to be as insulting as you like right?

Where is the supposed attack on atheists? I didn't see it, personally.

 

[Quagmire]

Where is the supposed attack on atheists? I didn't see it, personally.

It's right next to the imaginary insult.

 

[outhouse]

Why would Romans make a deity out of someone they oppressed, building him into something everyone would want to worship?

Romans oppressed Jews, Jesus was a Jew.

Roman citizens wrote the books as the movement failed in Judaism


There had been generations of Romans who had worshipped Judaism for hundreds of years, this event at Passover generated the mythology that grew jesus from a Jewish peasant into god himself. And the transition was not quick. Divinity was something mortal men could possess as the Emperor did, and that is who this group of Romans who wrote about jesus competed against for followers. That is why much of the books divinity is in competition with the Emperor as the legends and mythology were recorded.

These people were left with a event that placed a man above his mortal standing in life, they did not choose the mythology, they lived and followed it.

Equally, why would they make that up?

Not everything was made up. Divinity was given to men in power, but if your going to stand behind a divine man your going to make him as great as possible to gain followers, and if your going after the Emperors followers, and they were doing that. Then your going to have to make your god more powerful then the Emperor, and what a better way then claiming he is "gods son", a title the Emperor held first.

Romans loved the monotheistic god, and thi swas a perfect time for them to be able to escape the negative aspects of judaism and get away from those pesky trouble makers. [in their eyes]

 

[Bunyip]

:no:

I made an observation that people who deny evidence and lie about history do so out of fear.

YOU are the one that equated all that to "atheists".

No, I am the one who politely asked you for an example of such evidence. If you believe some atheists deny evidence out of fear - can you give an example?

As far as I know there is no evieence to reject.



[quite]I just tell the truth. If the truth insults you, guess who's fault that is.[/quote]

If it is the truth,then it should be easy to identify an example.

And pointing to my staff badge is just a cheap shot used by desperate people who want to blame someone else for the foot in their mouth.

It's your foot, it's your mouth. All I did was get out of the way.

What are you talking about? I just politely asked you to supoort yourpoint with an example.

 

[Bunyip]

Mythicist reject everything, with no reasons posted thta make sense.

How about many differet groups of people from diferent geographic locations all describing a man who was martyred at Passover in front of hundreds of thousands of witnesses, of which no one really questioned his historicity at all.

What we have is Romans making a deity out of a one of their oppressed peasants, from a people they did not even really care for. They were viewed as desperate stubborn trouble makers. Now one of two things happened, Either they were stuck with the event and martyred man and wrote about him building him into something everyone would want to worship, OR they made it all up, and so far no replacement hypothesis explains the evidence we are left with.

But I think most atheists would accept all of that anyway. Sure, a man called Jesus probably existed and was crucified. That man later became the center of s new religion. That a religion can be built upon a person who really lived is not contentious.

What is missing is evidence of his deity.

I agree with you completely in that the notion of a monotheistic god had great political merit and utility.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What are you talking about? I just politely asked you to supoort yourpoint with an example.

And I asked you to show where the attack on atheists was. Do you assume that mythicists are necessarily atheists and therefore saying the mythicist position is mistaken equates to attacking atheists?