Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[angellous_evangellous]

Sound arguments, you guys really are comedians.

You don't even know what the arguments are.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin,

I think the evidence of Jesus' enemies writing of Him is pretty strong and very convincing.

Or could be that the Talmud is written for a Jewish audience and they sought to write about a man who they did not consider to be their proclaimed Messiah. They wrote about him in such a derogitory fashion as to discredit him and his family so that none of their target audience would convert.

As far as the physical evidence of the Shroud being His burial cloth, I think is also convincing. We should remember why another dating test has to be conducted. What occurred before the first one in 1988 was performed is very, very, interesting. The 3 teams of secular scientists had asked the caretakers of the artifact at what time in history their organization came into possession of it. The responded that it was in the mid 13th century. So it is no suprise that the scientists dated the artifact to the mid 13th century.

This is an argument of convenience because these same types of testing techniques are employed when trying to determine how old a religious document is, or the age of other religious, historical artifacts etc. Who has the shroud now? Let's say we test again. Surely within the past 22 years our testing methods have become more refined.

You are correct in that the artifact only confirms (Mt.27:59) & (Mk.15:46).

Yes but only if we are to rely on these two passages. John's reference gives more details as to the burial procedure which seems to be closer to how the Jews perform their burials today. IMO there are many things wrong with trying to use this shroud as evidence for the biblical Yeshua.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sound arguments, you guys really are comedians.

I can see how doing real history and philosophy can be laughed off by someone who has absolutely no clue how it is done.

 

[dogsgod]

I can see how doing real history and philosophy can be laughed off by someone who has absolutely no clue how it is done.

We noticed how it's helped you and Oberon make the distinctions between allegorical fiction and real history when you're reading it.

 

[MW0082]

We noticed how it's helped you and Oberon make the distinctions between allegorical fiction and real history when you're reading it.

you always say what I think, bravo.....

 

[dogsgod]

Question:

When the witness told his story to the historian we call Luke, about how an angel of the Lord helped Peter escape from prison, and when he saw that Luke wrote it down word for word, did the witness **** himself laughing?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We noticed how it's helped you and Oberon make the distinctions between allegorical fiction and real history when you're reading it.

Do you even realize that Oberon and I disagree pretty radically about the historical Jesus?

[besides that, there are scores of rhetorical devices in the NT that Oberon and myself recognize... and allegory is quite rare in the NT, whether or not you arbitrarily declare something is fiction]

 

[Oberon]

Do you even realize that Oberon and I disagree pretty radically about the historical Jesus?

But we both agree he was historical, which puts us firmly in the laughable credulous believer category of people who can be safely ignored.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But we both agree he was historical, which puts us firmly in the laughable credulous believer category of people who can be safely ignored.

Yes, but you appeal to authority. :biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But we both agree he was historical, which puts us firmly in the laughable credulous believer category of people who can be safely ignored.

You just can't scream "agnostic" loud enough.

 

[Oberon]

You just can't scream "agnostic" loud enough.

What are you talking about? I'm as christian as Vermes or Rabbi Neusner or any number of closet christians who must be christian because they defend Jesus' historicity, which can only be due to religious dogma.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What are you talking about? I'm as christian as Vermes or Rabbi Neusner or any number of closet christians who must be christian because they defend Jesus' historicity, which can only be due to religious dogma.

You don't know how happy I am to see that...

 

[Oberon]

You don't know how happy I am to see that...

Let's face it: it doesn't matter if you are jewish, atheist, agnostic, or buddhist. If you think jesus was a historical person, you must be a believer.

 

[pasha]

Let's face it: it doesn't matter if you are jewish, atheist, agnostic, or buddhist. If you think jesus was a historical person, you must be a believer.

Question, why is it that so many christians fear/hate Islam if by dint
of your reasoning, they must be also believers?
Why is there such a gap, whereby the Jewish believers are almost worshiped
by christians, and the Muslims are denigrated?

pax

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Question, why is it that so many christians fear/hate Islam if by dint
of your reasoning, they must be also believers?
Why is there such a gap, whereby the Jewish believers are almost worshiped
by christians, and the Muslims are denigrated?

pax

Your questions may be beyond the scope of this particular thread....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let's face it: it doesn't matter if you are jewish, atheist, agnostic, or buddhist. If you think jesus was a historical person, you must be a believer.

Life's a *****.

 

[sojourner]

Let's face it: it doesn't matter if you are jewish, atheist, agnostic, or buddhist. If you think jesus was a historical person, you must be a believer.

I disagree. I know several Jewish scholars who posit Jesus' existence, but do not believe that Jesus was God's Son, Messiah, God Incarnate, etc. It is possible to posit his historical existence without ascribing Divinity to him.

 

[Oberon]

I disagree. I know several Jewish scholars who posit Jesus' existence, but do not believe that Jesus was God's Son, Messiah, God Incarnate, etc. It is possible to posit his historical existence without ascribing Divinity to him.

I know. I named two. I was being sarcastic, because some here seem to treat all those who argue that Jesus is historical (which is just about every scholar in any relevant field there is) as believers following dogma.

 

[logician]

Yes, you defeat sound arguments by the two websites that you copy from.

Which websites do you copy from?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which websites do you copy from?

:biglaugh: