Jolt Country

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:"Some of the historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth and death of Jesus within this range include D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 54, 56; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991–, vol. 1:214; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10–11, and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources", Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12–20. "

This really isn't a good one.

"Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44–45. "

Yes. Most experts agree if they get over being hesitant that it's probable!

"Most modern Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion. "

Hey, here's something else that was derived from writing taken down several decades after a spoken work!

Need I say more?

"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] "

Yeah, who but christian biblical scholars would be so barely invested in grounding the bible in truth?

"^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
^ Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson; G.A. Wells. The Jesus Legend, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, p xii. "

Yeah, too bad I'm only using a nonhistoricity thesis to illuminate that you're full of shit for ever saying that there 'obviously' was a jesus.

– Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger – as well as others. "

That article I linked to so long ago pretty solidly refutes those first two, look it up.

I can and have ballparked it - through shit people wrote thousands of years ago.

lol

Okay. You haven't produced a single compelling argument to the guy not existing, aside from the fact that we can truly never know anything for sure, which is Philosophy 101 Horseshit that you should be embarrassed to use.

Uh, yeah, doubting Jesus totally can only be reached after doubting EVERYTHING. It was definitely the last thing Descartes hit up on his list, right after the world. God you're being really dumb about this.

AND SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

Academic argeement. There is nothing scientific we have concerning Jesus. The shroud of Torin was proved to be false, if you didn't know.

God on the net a bunch of hopeless, acne-pitted virgins chime in with, "WHAT GOD LOL"

Oh yeah. I'm totally the guy with the axe to grind here.

it is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with a brain in their head that a guy named Jesus existed at the beginning of the common era, accepted by every major religion to come out of that area, academics and scientists the entire world over and the majority of human beings.

Well, AArdvark somehow disagrees with this sentiment, and he has kids and all that other old man shit. So, I feel like I'm in good company on this.

I really don't give a fuck. Saying something is overwhelming obvious because other guys agree it's overwhelming obvious, is bullshit. Needing to fish up articles on the spot about a subject you have never been overwhelmed enough by to actually know a basic reasons it's obvious (there aren't any), is bullshit. It's just a vicious circle, Jesus' historical existence is obvious because the experts feel it's obvious, they feel it's obvious because they all agree it's overwhelming obvious.

If there was just an obviously fictitious account of any other "larger than life" historical figure and barely a handful of texts written mainly in reference to that fictitious account that figure would be judged as myth(Jason and the Argonauts, Kevin Sorbo, Blade, Captain Kirk). Unless that figure is Jesus, in which case he gets a pass, because his dad is dead, and it's mean to point out that he may or may not have existed.

It's obvious that you're so entrenched in this garbage that for the sake of this argument there is no hope for you. Which isn't so bad, because it doesn't matter.

Worm wrote:This really isn't a good one.

You have to come up with some argument that makes people think you know more than those dudes. I am not seeing such an argument come out of you.

Yes. Most experts agree if they get over being hesitant that it's probable!

Right. As opposed to the counter-arguments you are offering up, which is that you know more and are privy to more information than ALL THOSE PEOPLE.

Need I say more?

Say something that indicates that you have a remote clue about what you're talking about.

Yeah, who but christian biblical scholars would be so barely invested in grounding the bible in truth?

Ha ha ha, "anyone who throws in with generally accepted stuff that happened in the guy's life is automatically a Christian fundamentalist!" You are an anti-intellectual garbage heap.

Yeah, too bad I'm only using a nonhistoricity thesis to illuminate that you're full of shit for ever saying that there 'obviously' was a jesus.

It's effectively refuted. I don't know how many examples of stupidity throughout history I can compare your belief structure to. Everyone is saying the earth revolves around the sun and you're saying it doesn't and it's flat.

I can and have ballparked it - through shit people wrote thousands of years ago.

lol

You are the dumbest human being on the face of the planet right now. For the next 24 hours you're the answer to a worldwide fucking trivia question.

Worm: "How do we know he's real?"
The Rest of the World: "Through historical documents."
Worm: "lol!!!!"
The Rest of the World: "I don't get it."
Worm: "Where are the television images? The archived radio broadcasts? The JPEGS?!?!!? WHERE ARE THE JPEGS? lol!!!! Using texts of the time or shortly thereafter is OBVIOUSLY LAUGHABLE"
The Rest of the World: "..."

Uh, yeah, doubting Jesus is totally can only be reached after doubting EVERYTHING. God you're being really dumb about this.

I think you lose the ability to refer to someone else as dumb when it's been proven, time and time again, that you've thrown-in with the dumbass tinfoil dickshits and lovingly embraced their side.

Academic argeement. There is nothing scientific we have concerning Jesus. The shroud of Torin was proved to be false, if you didn't know.

There were at least two issues with the Shroud. The first is that some dumb fucker patched it at the same time the carbon dating returned its age. All accounts indicate that whoever owns the thing was too stupid to not send out a non-patched section. Secondly, the thing had been in a fire at least a couple times, so in 30 years when the then-owner decides it's time for another test, I guarantee you he will snip off a section that got burned and bring us back to square one. Until someone forcibly goes in there and cuts out a one-inch square on the goddamn face (or develops the tricorder) nobody is going to be certain because of the intense stupidity of the shroud's owner. On the other hand, as dumb as that guy is, he's not doubting that Christ existed, so perhaps you should temper your own intellectual fury with the dude.

Oh yeah. I'm totally the guy with the axe to grind here.

The fuck do I care? Scientists believe that smoking is bad for you. That black holes exist. That the earth is getting warmer due to the greenhouse effect. That time travel is impossible. That Jesus existed. When one of those theories change, so will, instantly, my own "opinion" on the subject. When the majority of scholars state, "Christ was an amalgam of Garry Wristholes and Dickless Josephson and not a real person as we all thought" then my own take on the subject changes as well. This isn't the case for you, of course: all there needs to be is a single diaper-wearing moon loon babbling about a fringe non-scientific theory and you are on-board. You have somehow perverted knowledge into a system where the less people that subscribe to something, the more likely you are to believe it yourself.

Well, AArdvark somehow disagrees with this sentiment, and he has kids and all that other old man shit. So, I feel like I'm in good company on this.

I'm sure he's prouder than he ever was during the birth of his children that he's got you on his side here. You should write your next post in Klingon to make him extra-proud.

It's just a vicious circle, Jesus' historical existence is obvious because the experts feel it's obvious, they feel it's obvious because they all agree it's overwhelming obvious.

Yeah, this shit happens all the time. There's definitely nothing to be gained by conclusively proving scientists and historians wrong. People DELIGHT in this shit. I guarantee you that the people who debunked the cold fusion asshole from a few years ago took more pleasure in that then they ever had doing anything else in life. You require behavior from humans that has proven to not exist, time and time again, for this fraud to be perpetuated.

If there was just an obviously fictitious account of any other "larger than life" historical figure and barely a handful of texts written mainly in reference to that fictitious account that figure would be judged as myth. Unless that figure is Jesus, in which case he gets a pass, because his dad is dead, and it's mean to point out that he may or may not have existed.

Normally it's not mean, so I'd agree with you, but since he apparently is coming back and everything, well, you know. Have some tact, is all I'm saying.

It's obvious that you're so entrenched in this garbage that for the sake of this argument there is no hope for you. Which isn't so bad, because it doesn't matter.

I am entrenched with trusting the scientific community on conclusions they have drawn, instead of demanding that I take the time to independently research and verify every goddamn thing they come up with. If I didn't, I'd be running tests with Bill from Lab A on "retsin."

Well, AArdvark somehow disagrees with this sentiment, and he has kids and all that other old man shit. So, I feel like I'm in good company on this.

I don't understand the relevancy of this point. Please explain.

My take is, and this is only a casual opinion because I have never seriously researched the subject, simply absorbed the information around me from the time that I could process such information, Jesus was this nice guy.
That's it.
Now if he was real or not is beyond me, I don't know and don't care, he dosen't owe me any money. If there are writings about him and his hijinks still surviving that's fine, he's still dead, 'narmeen. Arguing about him or the people that want to prove or disprove him is pointless.

I will give a closer example of how history can be twisted, just because I'm thinking about it.



The declaration of independence was ratified on july 4th, 1776, right? Sure but the picture of everybody standing around waiting to sign the thing (on the back of the two dollar bill) is patently false. it took over a year to get all the signatures on that document and they had to carry it to most of the signers' homesteads, being ever so careful to avoid the British soldiers and those symathetic to the motherland.
This is only a small example of how history can go through many wringers and twists and this is only 200 years old. Now we discuss something 2000 years old and imagine how the tales have been convoluted, because writing was something only a select few have mastered at the time so all this was passed down by word of mouth.

THE
EXCERCISE IN
FUTILITY
AARDVARK

Well, that's just it: he owes me money. So that's where I am coming from.

Haha, you said scientists believe in Jesus on the same level they believe smoking is bad for you. What the fuck is wrong with you exactly?

How did you survive that egg fiasco? Faith in science maggots like you are why people can foist up this I.D. bullshit and get away with it, because no one can successfully argue for what they think is true. You're just outsourcing truth to someone else.

Smoking makes you look cool (which is good for you) and Christ might not have existed. I think that is a pretty good analogy. In fact, I am going to award myself a "PAT ON THE BACK."

What egg fiasco?

And what's this about an I.D. card program? Of course you can be against a national ID card that's required to be on your person at all times, or whatever the proposal is. That has no basis in science, it has a basis in fascism.

Intelligent Design. Did that entire thing slip by you mister pro-intellectual?

Worm wrote:Intelligent Design. Did that entire thing slip by you mister pro-intellectual?

What does "intelligent design" have to do with eggs? Are you talking about how science has stated that eggs are good for you or bad for you on seemingly alternating weeks? Nobody cares about that kind of junk science. Half of it is funded by the marketing department of a corporation anyway. As long as you don't eat too much of any one food you're going to be fine.

Am I missing some parts to this thread? Eggs and ID cards?

An Identification card is referred to as an ID, it however is not initialed because it's referring to a single word.

Eggs were science of just as much importance as your 'scientific' evidence of Jesus. Yes, if you trust other people so damn much I imagine you throwing out eggs, and then buying more.

Finally, I.D. is of significance because people who just "figger" that evolution doesn't need to be argued for have been shit all over. That's what anti-intellectualism is, it's a desire to not be intellectual, for example, trusting someone else to be intellectual for you.

Oh, I get it. The Cholesterol thing a bunch of years back. Eggs are bad-type foods, like carbs are now. Hmmph.

As long as you don't eat too much of any one food you're going to be fine.

THE
GOOD THINGS
AARDVARK

Worm wrote:Eggs were science of just as much importance as your 'scientific' evidence of Jesus. Yes, if you trust science so damn much I imagine you throwing out eggs, and then buying more.

I think you over-estimate how much pull I have had and have ever had with the food situation in any particular living arrangement I've been party to.

Finally, I.D. is of significance because people who just "figger" that evolution doesn't need to be argued for have been shit all over. That's what anti-intellectualism is, it's a desire to not be intellectual, for example, trusting someone else to be intellectual.

Being an anti-intellectual is not in believing a peer-reviewed study that states that, I don't know, radium is bad for you. Believing such a study indicates that you are simply busy.

Intelligent Design. Did that entire thing slip by you mister pro-intellectual?

Now what's this all about?

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Being an anti-intellectual is not in believing a peer-reviewed study that states that, I don't know, radium is bad for you. Believing such a study indicates that you are simply busy.

Haha, yeah, ancient history is exactly like chemistry. You're such a fucking intellectual.

AArdvark wrote:

Intelligent Design. Did that entire thing slip by you mister pro-intellectual?

Now what's this all about?

That he doesn't know the difference between an initialism and an abbreviation I guess.

That's not relevant to the original discussion. It's a typing thing. If this were a spoken discussion, say at a nice bar, the ID vs I.D. would have not even entered into it.


THE
GRAMMER SCHAMMER
AARDVARK

Yeah no shit. Though he just said that doubting Jesus is like doubting radium's radioactivity. What's the point of maintaining discourse? I mean he might as well admit that he believes in the tower of babel making God if he's gonna go down this path.

Worm wrote:That he doesn't know the difference between an initialism and an abbreviation I guess.

You deciding to introduce intelligent design into this six page discussion by calling it "I.D.," which is a term nobody else in the world uses for it and then getting foamy and petulant that nobody had any idea what you were talking about is your problem, not ours.

But yeah, you definitely always put periods after made-up shortcut words on the Internet! QFT! FTW! QED! FOAD! HTH! HAND!

Worm wrote:Yeah no shit. Though he just said that doubting Jesus is like doubting radium's radioactivity. What's the point of maintaining discourse? I mean he might as well admit that he believes in the tower of babel making God if he's gonna go down this path.

Whoa, if you didn't run your own experiments with radiation, THEN HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW!?!?!?!??!!??! YOU FARMED OUT YOUR BELIEF OF RADIATION CAUSING CANCER!!!