The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

[Copernicus]

Name ten serious scholars who do.

Again, it is reasonable to bring up the fact that the weight of scholarly argument is pro-historicity, but that is still ultimately an argumentum ad populum, until you actually examine the arguments. That's like saying that we should believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics because most scientists believe it. Even if that were true, it doesn't make the conclusion true.

I can hardly wait when Ehrman debates a myther to promote his book. It is going to happen.

I probably respect Ehrman a lot more than you do, since he is often on the side of those who question orthodox reasoning over the interpretation of the Bible. I was particularly impressed with his book God's Problem, and I think of him as a solid scholar when it comes to scriptural debates. However, I do hope that he gets a chance to go beyond cheap shots at "mythers" in a real debate. The blog post that you cited did not strike me as very scholarly.

 

[Copernicus]

And for eveyones amusement I give you this:


[youtube]hnybQxIgfPw[/youtube]
Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube

I can hardly wait when Ehrman debates a myther to promote his book. It is going to happen.

Cynthia, thank you for that link. I didn't comment on it in my last post, because I wanted to watch the whole thing, and that took over half an hour (with the usual interruptions).

My impression after listening to his entire lecture was that he spent most of his time doing what the anti-mythicists do most of the time, i.e. complaining about the lack of evidence that Jesus did not exist and the lack of scholarship and scholarly backing among mythicists. Indeed, he spent most of his time talking in tones that suggested how outrageous it was for anyone to question historicity. He gave the same argument that almost all the "experts" agreed that he did, and he likened the alleged consensus among experts to a consensus among real scientists.

Ehrman did a decent job of summarizing the mythicist arguments, but his rebuttals struck me as quite weak. One of his ideas was that we typically lack evidence for most historical figures of that era other than "aristocrats", so it should not surprise us that we find no evidence of the illiterate "ordinary person" Jesus. But we similarly find no evidence of people who did not exist, so this is hardly a compelling reason for the historicity of Jesus. It is just an argument that we shouldn't expect to find evidence. I find the rebuttal exceptionally weak, because Jesus is perhaps the one allegedly historical figure that people have spent the most effort and expense to find corroborating evidence of. He did allegedly have enough impact on people to have generated a cult following, so he wasn't just some illiterate nobody.

Ehrman did not actually cease to attack mythicists and their arguments until the last few minutes of the lecture--as if positive claims of historicity needed to be disproven rather than the other way around. He did not raise a single argument that I have not heard before, and I wasn't convinced by all of his rebuttals of mythicist arguments.

Finally, he raised what I consider the best positive argument for Jesus--Paul's mention of his brother James. However, that is a slim reed to base a positive case for historicity on. Inventors of religious fables and people who have suffered religious delusions have been known to make false assertions before. We have no corroboration for what Paul wrote. Ehrman mentioned that he had one other positive argument that was too elaborate to go into detail on, so he told folks to read his book. He made no attempt to summarize it.

I will attempt to read his book in the near future, but I am not encouraged by his blog post or his lecture. I felt that he could have spent the lecture elaborating on all the positive evidence that he had rather than attacking all the things mythicists have said. Instead, he just ends up handing out the same old promissory note--he can't reasonably summarize the "slam-dunk" evidence for the existence of Jesus, but he points to a book and says that the evidence is in there.

 

[crystalonyx]

If anyone actually attends a Christian church, there is no "presesnting of evidence" about the Jesus story and other biblical stories. It's all pushed as a matter of faith.

 

[Quagmire]

If anyone actually attends a Christian church, there is no "presesnting of evidence" about the Jesus story and other biblical stories. It's all pushed as a matter of faith.

Good thing this isn't a church then, huh.

 

[outhouse]

, so he wasn't just some illiterate nobody.

Thats just it he was.

He was a poor, peasant, illiterate teacher/healer lost in a sea of poverty stricken jews that had a hard time dealing with roman oppression and the taxation they levied


while alive no one knew of this poor peasant jewish teacher, no one at all.


Only after death and him being a martyr for the hard working oppressed average poor jew, did his movement start to gain a following.

The problem with historicity is that the movement was stolen by gentiles who wrote about it and spread the word more effective then the illiterate apostles. SO what we are left with is cross cultural oral tradion that was later written down by unknown people who were not only NOT part of the original movement, but who didnt live where jesus did, know jesus , or hear a word jesus ever said, hell they didnt have one thing common with jesus or his teachings. Add the mythical content and some peopel have a hard time swallowing that biblical jesus is not historical jesus.

 

[Copernicus]

There were a lot of illiterate, poor, itinerant preachers in the region. Any one of them might have been murdered unjustly and triggered a cult following for the martyrdom. Or it could just be that such heroic stories circulated in the region and inspired the growth of a legendary figure that got fleshed out as a real person over the course of a few decades. In the end, it doesn't matter whether such a real person existed, because real people like him existed. What is the point of insisting on historicity if you admit that just about everything attributed to him after his death was made up in a kind of Chinese whispers game? The story was inspiring then, and it just got more inspiring as people embellished it, not unlike the tales of other legendary figures.

 

[outhouse]

Again, I find ad hominem attacks like this as useful as ad hominem attacks usually are. They are intended to suppress debate, not resolve it. As for there being no solid evidence for much of antiquity, that depends on how you define "antiquity". There is solid evidence for a lot of what we find in history books. The historicity of Jesus needs to be judged on the merits of the arguments made in its favor.

It does need to be judged equally and on its merits, guess what it has.

I do get carried away but i also deal with mythers on a daily basis and have a active dog in the fight to be able to much such statements from valid viewpoint.

then this question would not produce the level of controversy that it does.

there is no level of controversy within the educated circles about his historicity as a real Galilean jew.

You have authors pushing books for cash, but as far as mainstream scholarships are concerned. The man existed

Perhaps we have differing opinions on what "solid evidence" means. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is all textual.

as is almost all the evidence for Josephus and many other early church fathers. textual evidence is solid bud. Im not saying it stands solid without scholarships though.


case in point that should shut this debate, when we get mythical charactors, we know it after scholarships on the study if there is enough literature to go through. in this case there is not a shortage of material. Quality material is not as much as we would like but its still there.

What we are not finding is legends were we are not really sure about historicity, case in point, Moses. We know he was mythical and has zero historicty as written. Not the case with Jesus. people still argue for Moses but in this case like the Jesus mythers, they have no valid case. Hell people still argue that Paul was a mythical creation.

That just restates the opinion of people who believe in historicity. Those who oppose it argue that the evidence on the other side--that the myth/legend could have arisen by syncretism of popular myths or that Paul was the progenitor--is better than that on the side of historicity. For me, the most convincing piece of evidence is Paul's reference to James, the alleged "brother" of Jesus. I don't like Carrier's argument that all Christians called themselves "brothers", but it is conceivable that even his textual "evidence" had no basis in reality. We don't know whether Paul was reporting an accurate memory or a false memory. We don't know a great deal about the context in which he wrote. People today repeat hearsay as if it were fact, so I don't see why we should put such trust in a handful of texts that were written two millennia ago without some reasonable historical corroborating evidence.

again if this is about probabilities, which history is, the odd's are on jesus. Part of that is just due to the horrible replacement hypothesis presented by the best the mythers have. Another part of the problem is like creationist, mythers all dont agree on the same replacement hypothesis with all kinds of flat out weird ideas. Because there a vast minority this is more visible then the wide and strange views the historist follow.

Ill take what Carrier writes to heart, but in the end, he is just another tool in my belt for me to pick and choose how much I will personaly use. I dont nor will ever follow any one scholars

As do the average anti-mythers. I don't see much profit in this line of ad hominem disparagement. It convinces nobody but the already-convinced.

point taken

I see that as well.

I like Carrier, too, but I thought that he was a myther. That is, he believes that Jesus likely was not a single historical figure. He used to believe in historicity, but Doherty convinced him otherwise. I haven't read his book, though.

Carrier isnt a myther so to speak, he does find some of Dohertys work valid as do I. Just not his end result which Carrier doesnt stand behind either.

Carrier plays both sides which is great, someone needs to keep the scholars in check and standards should be met.

 

[fallingblood]

Thats just it he was.

He was a poor, peasant, illiterate teacher/healer lost in a sea of poverty stricken jews that had a hard time dealing with roman oppression and the taxation they levied

Yet, within the life time of the followers of Jesus, we do see people writing about Jesus. And the followers of Jesus also seemed to have included at least some educated Jews; at least by the end of the century. So whether or not his original followers were poor, that is of little matter here.

I think what we have to come to is that people simply didn't care about writing about Jesus. This historical figure really did not matter. It was the resurrected, or the mythical Jesus that took center stage. The life of Jesus was not very important, it was the death and resurrection. It was in the death and resurrection that meaning was found.

while alive no one knew of this poor peasant jewish teacher, no one at all.

Actually, quite a few people would have known him. Being an itinerate preacher meant that he would have been known in many areas. Whether or not he had a large following does not translate to how many people actually knew about him.

Only after death and him being a martyr for the hard working oppressed average poor jew, did his movement start to gain a following.

Why didn't any other such religious leader gain such a following after death? Why were no other such religious leaders seen as martyrs for this cause?

The reason he gained a movement was simply by luck and very devoted followers. It wasn't because he was seen as a martyr.

The problem with historicity is that the movement was stolen by gentiles who wrote about it and spread the word more effective then the illiterate apostles. SO what we are left with is cross cultural oral tradion that was later written down by unknown people who were not only NOT part of the original movement, but who didnt live where jesus did, know jesus , or hear a word jesus ever said, hell they didnt have one thing common with jesus or his teachings. Add the mythical content and some peopel have a hard time swallowing that biblical jesus is not historical jesus.

The first writers that we have regarding Jesus were Jews. It was never stolen by gentiles, it was purposely brought to the gentiles by Jews on purpose. It only became a gentile movement after the destruction of the Temple, and the Rabbinic Jews pushing this new movement out.

Also, the author of Matthew is usually presumed to have come from the Palestinian area, and was Jewish. So your argument fails on that grounds.





As a side note, I do think Copernicus has made great arguments here. Now, I personally do accept a historical Jesus; however, he points out some very good points. Such as, ad hominems are not effective manners on arguing, and really, that does seem to be what many are coming down to. Instead of making valid arguments, simply dismissals of the opponents being kooks or the like is just worthless, and childish. It adds nothing to the actual conversation.

Now for Ehrman's book; I like many of them. However, doing a quick look at this particular one, it is not worth the money. He really doesn't add anything new to the debate, he spends too much time in simple insults, and defending those insults. He even spends an amount of time defending the instigation that he basically just repeats what is long known by scholars. It is not a scholarly work, and he does fail in this book, at least in my opinion.

 

[outhouse]

There were a lot of illiterate, poor, itinerant preachers in the region. Any one of them might have been murdered unjustly and triggered a cult following for the martyrdom. Or it could just be that such heroic stories circulated in the region and inspired the growth of a legendary figure that got fleshed out as a real person over the course of a few decades. In the end, it doesn't matter whether such a real person existed, because real people like him existed. What is the point of insisting on historicity if you admit that just about everything attributed to him after his death was made up in a kind of Chinese whispers game? The story was inspiring then, and it just got more inspiring as people embellished it, not unlike the tales of other legendary figures.

thats do to the cross cultural oral tradition, when the movement was stolen by gentiles [paul]


with that said, I think the body was stolen or stated it was put in the tomb when it may have been thrown in a pit. this excellerated the legend. we have a missing body.

 

[outhouse]

This historical figure really did not matter. It was the resurrected, or the mythical Jesus that took center stage. The life of Jesus was not very important, it was the death and resurrection. It was in the death and resurrection that meaning was found.

exactly

I agree.

Actually, quite a few people would have known him. Being an itinerate preacher meant that he would have been known in many areas. Whether or not he had a large following does not translate to how many people actually knew about him.

known him? you know what I mean. he was so unknown not a scribe scribbled a word down about him while alive.

there were many different teacher/healers in his time. a over abundance of said individuals.



jesus was a traveling teacher, who traveled in a very small group as teaching/healing for dinner scraps would not support the mythical 12 followers. this is where I believe his close followers or inner circle was as large as it ever was.

Why didn't any other such religious leader gain such a following after death? Why were no other such religious leaders seen as martyrs for this cause?

excellent questions and the answer has multiple points of interest.

missing body, possibly by disciples to further the movement

BUT above all.......jesus movement made religion and health care free for the poor peasants in and around Galilee and all those who took in this message during his travels.

remember, the religion was corrupt with a roman infection in the temple, it was costly to worship under roman control of the bank/temple. And those in rural areas were also in extreme poverty and had no money. Free went a long way when you could invite religion in to your dinner table. the movement didnt charge for their work or healing, but the poor desperate disciples loved your food.

no other leaders remembered? we dont know the first thing about the true movement. the only thing that made this movement work was it was stolen by gentiles. Had it remained a sect of judaism, it would never have flourished and would be long dead now like many other sects of the time.

. It wasn't because he was seen as a martyr.

You cant say this because we dont know enough from the original movement ir its popularity. we only know the gentile version that survived on cross cultural oral tradition. NOT that im sure about this or follow this to the T BUT For all we know he could have started a riot in the temple to try and start a riot to incite a massive uprising against a roman infected temple, later edited out building the roman mythical jesus we know today.

it was purposely brought to the gentiles by Jews on purpose

sources please


they dont exist, this was a sect of a pure free form of judaism for hard working poor peasant jews that jesus took his teachings based on John to.


Paul took the oral tradition, and took his gentile version to the road.

Also, the author of Matthew is usually presumed to have come from the Palestinian area, and was Jewish. So your argument fails on that grounds.

False

Matthew copied GMark which has a roman/gentile foundation and built on that, writing to a more jewish audience, which at that time its leadership and methodology was being rebuilt. [in turmoil]

So we have a roman/gentile foundation there as well.

As a side note, I do think Copernicus has made great arguments here.

Oh he has, I agree.

simply dismissals of the opponents being kooks or the like is just worthless, and childish. It adds nothing to the actual conversation.

Fighting mythers daily in another forum who are as educated as mythers get including Doherty gives me the right to make said statements, and is not dismissal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While perhaps a good overview, I see nothing substantive added by the blog.

 

[fallingblood]

known him? you know what I mean. he was so unknown not a scribe scribbled a word down about him while alive.

there were many different teacher/healers in his time. a over abundance of said individuals.

The vast majority of people were peasants. The scribes and such really did not take a huge notice of those peasants. Even religious leaders who had large movements were not written about. Looking through Josephus, there were a number of religious leaders like Jesus who seemingly had large followings, but were not written about until the time of Josephus (or we simply are missing earlier sources).

Just because no scribe wrote about him really doesn't suggest he had a small following, or that only a few people knew about him. It just means scribes really just didn't care about one more religious leader when there was an abundance of such individuals.

excellent questions and the answer has multiple points of interest.

missing body, possibly by disciples to further the movement

BUT above all.......jesus movement made religion and health care free for the poor peasants in and around Galilee and all those who took in this message during his travels.

remember, the religion was corrupt with a roman infection in the temple, it was costly to worship under roman control of the bank/temple. And those in rural areas were also in extreme poverty and had no money. Free went a long way when you could invite religion in to your dinner table. the movement didnt charge for their work or healing, but the poor desperate disciples loved your food.

no other leaders remembered? we dont know the first thing about the true movement. the only thing that made this movement work was it was stolen by gentiles. Had it remained a sect of judaism, it would never have flourished and would be long dead now like many other sects of the time.

We have no reason to think that they stole the body though. It would not really have furthered the movement, as there was no idea that the messiah was supposed to rise from the dead. Not to mention, it would have been easy for everyone to just say that they stole the body. Stealing the body simply would not have been an effective manner in furthering the movement. Especially when the central idea of the movement did not rest on a missing body. Look at Paul, he doesn't mention the empty tomb.

As for free health care. Jesus wasn't the only one. With the death of Jesus, it would have been just as easy to follow another faith healer from that time. There were many of them. More so, as you have stated, he didn't have a massive amounts of followers anyway. Really though, Jesus was nothing unique. They could have found any number of faith healers at that time.

As for the religion being corrupt, not really. Maybe certain sects, such as the Sadducees. However, the vast majority of Jews were not associated with the main sects of Judaism (the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes). Not to mention, most didn't think that the Essenes were corrupt, or even the Pharisees. It was the Temple institute that was believed to have been corrupt. Meaning, there were many options for the Jews at that time. Jesus wasn't needed.

And again, there is no sign that the movement was stolen by Gentiles. It was freely brought to the Gentiles. More so, the fact that it survived after the Temple's destruction would suggest that it in fact did take off, and would have survived anyway.

You cant say this because we dont know enough from the original movement ir its popularity. we only know the gentile version that survived on cross cultural oral tradition. NOT that im sure about this or follow this to the T BUT For all we know he could have started a riot in the temple to try and start a riot to incite a massive uprising against a roman infected temple, later edited out building the roman mythical jesus we know today.

Then you can't say that Jesus was a martyr and that was why the movement spread.

sources please

Both Acts and Paul.

they dont exist, this was a sect of a pure free form of judaism for hard working poor peasant jews that jesus took his teachings based on John to.


Paul took the oral tradition, and took his gentile version to the road.

Paul was a Jew. He died a Jew. All that he did was open up this sect to the entire world. He based such a movement on the OT, which stated that was what was going to happen. More so, if you read Paul or Acts, they both state that this Gentile movement was officially sanctioned by the Jerusalem Church. It was a purposeful thing. In fact, Acts suggests that Peter had first went to the Gentiles.

Paul was still small fish anyway. There were many various missionaries to the Gentiles. Paul even mentions some in anger. The difference with Paul is that he was literate, and only after his death, was seen as quite important to the movement. That could be that by that time, the movement had went more gentile simply because they were kicked out of Judaism (and they were kicked out only because Rabbinical Judaism was centralizing itself in order to remain strong after such a devastating blow; the Temple destruction).

On a side note, many Gentiles were already following Judaism anyway. They were not Jews, but were considered "God-fearers." They didn't convert, but still practiced Judaism to a point.

False

Matthew copied GMark which has a roman/gentile foundation and built on that, writing to a more jewish audience, which at that time its leadership and methodology was being rebuilt. [in turmoil]

So we have a roman/gentile foundation there as well.

Actually it is true that the author of Matthew is thought to have come from Palestine. According to Wikipedia: Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (note: I don't care for Wiki as you know, but since you accept it, I figure it is a good enough source for the present situation).

Yes, Matthew borrowed from Mark. However, that doesn't mean that Matthew was based on a Roman/Gentile foundation. There is no evidence that the author of Mark was a Roman citizen. He was probably Roman in only the sense that he lived in the Roman Empire (in that regards, Jesus was a Roman). As for being a Gentile, that is not necessary either. He seems to be familiar with Aramaic, as well as various Jewish ideas, which he has to explain for his audience. Most scholars agree that he wrote in Syria, not Rome. Now, he may have written for a Gentile population (or a mostly Gentile population), but that does not mean he was a Gentile Roman.

Mark is said to have been based on older sources as well. Those sources are most likely Jewish, simply because the farther we go back, the more Jewish the ideas are.

Also, Mark is just one source for Matthew. Matthew also used other sources as well. So there is more foundation there then you are implying.

Fighting mythers daily in another forum who are as educated as mythers get including Doherty gives me the right to make said statements, and is not dismissal.

It is a dismissal. And it doesn't give you a right. That is a different forum. It does not mean anything here. You insulting your opponent, and leaving it at that, is a dismissal.

 

[vepurusg]

It's a conspiracy theory. That's why most serious scholars dismiss it.

Some elements of the modern neo-gnostic "Jesus was a sexual metaphor" may verge on conspiracy, but the overwhelming body of skepticism to the existence of this character is not a conspiracy theory; that would require conspiring.

The people involved could very well have believed what they wrote (including the scribes who inserted Christian affirmations into documents they copied over the next few hundred years-- which is very obvious if you would read them).

There simply isn't hard evidence of any particular character remotely of this type (the 'Jesus'/'Yeshua' fellow), so it should be taken with a grain of salt in the same way we would consider Hercules, or any other historical/mythical character, or even whole events like the Trojan war, and the bit about the giant wooden Horse.

Ancient history wasn't very rigorous, and is very hard to pry from the clutches of mythology and prose (if you've ever read any of it, you'd see why- it's full of exaggeration and outright fabrication intended to make the accounts more interesting).
And when it comes from letters from people who never met the character in any naturalistic way, and second or third hand accounts that can be more easily explained by mass hysteria (which could have had any source) than by magical powers, no reasonable historian can assert that there's any good reason to believe that such a person existed.

Of course, there's no good reason to believe such a figure (upon whom the myths may be very very loosely based) didn't exist either.

There's just no real evidence either way to tell us anything at all about a man who may or may not have existed, and may or may not have carried that name.

The main thing that influences probability would be where you draw the line- at what point is a historical basis so corrupted that it ceases to resemble the original character and becomes something else entirely?

And that would be a somewhat subjective line.



However, it is important for people to understand the lack of historical evidence for this mythological figure, whether he was based on a real person or not.

 

[crystalonyx]

Good thing this isn't a church then, huh.

You mean someone is presenting real evidence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some elements of the modern neo-gnostic "Jesus was a sexual metaphor" may verge on conspiracy, but the overwhelming body of skepticism to the existence of this character is not a conspiracy theory; ...

Actually, it is.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Crossan uses the same argument as Ehrman. The mythers base their beliefs solely on their emotion. They just don't like Christianity so they choose to believe that Jesus doesn't exist despite the evidence.

:spit:....What?

 

[outhouse]

Just because no scribe wrote about him really doesn't suggest he had a small following

no but you cannot support a large group surviving on dinner scraps. only having 3or 4 followers his inner circle, is all that makes sense.

We have no reason to think that they stole the body though

Take the frog out of your pocket, because a stolen or misplaced body ranks high in what scholars look at to figure out the best option, its fiction after a vision that is more probably.

Look at Paul, he doesn't mention the empty tomb.

paul is almpst worthless because he is a "want -to- be" apostle who is removed far from the original movement. he is more responsible for Bjesus removing Hjesus from oral tradition

Jesus was nothing unique.

its what ive been saying

Especially when the central idea of the movement did not rest on a missing body.

I'd rethink that, and not put it out to the pasture unless you have good evidence.

the resurrection was a very powerful theme back then going way back in the OT.

And you know nothing of the original movement as paul took it in his own direction.

the thing that sticks out, is that the movement only gained steam after his death.

Then you can't say that Jesus was a martyr and that was why the movement spread.

the fact the movement gained all its steam after his death, places him as a martyr

it may not have been intentional.

As for the religion being corrupt, not really

sure it was

the temple was the religions government and bank, it was corrupt.

Jews were looking for new ways to worship within judaism, the religion itself was fine. hence the word corrupt, not ruined.

Paul was a Jew

you dont know that, and its a hot topic within scholarships

his judaism is debated.

he was a want to be so bad, its not a stretch to think this criminal litterate bounty hunter, wrote himself in.

On a side note, many Gentiles were already following Judaism anyway. They were not Jews, but were considered "God-fearers." They didn't convert, but still practiced Judaism to a point.

yes free religion and health care took off in all directions, but thats not what jesus started

it was responsible for the cross cultural oral tradition that paul learned from.

its not like he spied on judaism and stole it.

. It was freely brought to the Gentiles

you dont know that. you dont know that they just heard of this new method of worship for poverty strticken people that didnt cost a arm and a leg and start using it.

Mark is said to have been based on older sources as well. Those sources are most likely Jewish, simply because the farther we go back, the more Jewish the ideas are.

by that time it was already within another culture

of course you can trace roots back to judaism

Also, Mark is just one source for Matthew. Matthew also used other sources as well. So there is more foundation there then you are implying.

My view stands, as its not that diffgerent from the roman/gentile foundation laid previously.

its far removed from a the sect of judaism that it started out from.


a gentile preaching more of the roots of judaism to keep his version of the movement as pure as possible makes perfect sense, given his geographic location

 

[vepurusg]

Actually, it is.

You're clearly only reading wacko web sites

It's not a conspiracy theory if there's no conspiracy. Most skepticism doesn't involve any conspiracy, and rarely does anybody make websites about it, because it's not that romantic.

Mass hysteria, built on an amalgamation of different characters during the era and general discontent makes plenty of sense. It's one theory, but it's not a conspiracy, and doesn't require a conspiracy.

Nobody had to deliberately make anything up, and Saul was fairly clearly insane (also not a conspiracy- crazy people saying crazy things and arguing with other crazy people is not a conspiracy).


Personally, I favor the theory that this Jesus character was a con-artist and wicked person. Functionally, I agree with the Pharisees in Matthew 12:24

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're clearly only reading wacko web sites

 

[Yerda]

Take that, Jay, you wacko.