Jolt Country

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:

Worm wrote:I never said there was no Jesus.

Worm from earlier wrote:He probably didn't exist. That's the joke. I'm using my temporal dimensional magic dinner to CHECK FOR MYSELF, you stupid fuck.

Good one you mincing maggot. You and your lady act as if the mere act of doubt upon a primarily fictional character is like doubting gravity, and you can't give me a pass between a solid no and 'probably not'?

Also, I'm sorry. Is the bit about a historical Jesus being so far apart from the bible Jesus so fucking reasonable that you can't bring yourself to address it?

Even thinking that there was probably no cult leader carpenter named "Jesus" at year zero puts you in line with these other atheists, who apparently think the world began at January 1st, 1970 and that every text that came from an apostle can and should be discounted because, hey, it was all a big PLOY.

Yeah, if the fucking followers of that shit were not miles off the mark you might have a point here. How does truth so often lead people to perversion and corruption? I dunno, I guess they're just not ready for it still.

However there is sure no fucking way for you to claim the high ground against someone who thinks the opposite of you with just as little evidence.

It's not 50/50 that the man existed. Come on. Both "sides" aren't equal.

Eat a motherfucking dick you chud. No proof, I do not give a fuck. Why is it that the New Testament must hold so much more merit than other ancient religious text, its contemporary popularity?

I don't see why Thor, Zeus, and Ra shouldn't get a fair shake. I wish you could provide a reason, but you can't. You're giving Christ a fucking pass and it's pathetic. If it's faith, then, how the fuck can that be argued to me over an internet message board?

jesus christ, worm must be on his fucking period.

Good one you mincing maggot. You and your lady act as if the mere act of doubt upon a primarily fictional character is like doubting gravity, and you can't give me a pass between a solid no and 'probably not'?

Wait, you also said:

Worm wrote:Look, it's complete and utter horseshit.

Worm wrote:Worst part is that the right can apply the tool of doubt to FUCKING EVOLUTION and we can't apply it to the EXISTENCE OF A HISTORICALLY UNDOCUMENTED JEW FROM 2000 YEARS AGO.

I bolded the part before the word "Jew" because it's how I personally read all sentences dealing with Jewish people anyway. But Jesus is not historically undocumented, unless you are saying that the crap John, Peter, Matthew and ... I can't remember the names of the rest of them, anyway, if you are saying that those guys aren't credible then you have to add that in when you doubt the existence of Jesus.

Of course, it's interesting that if there were a book of Judas, it would be one MORE chapter in the Bible that stated the historic adventues of Jesus and just might tip the scales to make atheists admit that the guy existed!!!

I mean, goddamn, the atheists are right about most of the horeshit coming from that religion. There is no need to take it this far. I think, to most reasonable people, the war has been won and the battle is over! This is just being mean to Christians, at this point, and my internal registers, detectors and alarm systems when it comes to cyberbullying (which is what the whole "Christ never existed" movement is) sets off.

Also, I'm sorry. Is the bit about a historical Jesus being so far apart from the bible Jesus so fucking reasonable that you can't bring yourself to address it?

No, the fact that you are choosing which parts of the Internet you want to cherry pick is... whatever I need to say to end the sentence and sardonically twist your own phrases against you. It's THAT.

Yeah, if the fucking followers of that shit were not miles off the mark you might have a point here. How does truth so often lead people to perversion and corruption? I dunno, I guess they're just not ready for it still.

All the shit they said he can do is within the realm of science, anyway, and if we survive long enough we'll live like the Son of God ourselves. If you think that mankind won't one day turn water into wine with our elemental transmogrifiers, or walk on water with our po(r)table gravity nullifiers, which I am sure you do not, then all it takes for Christ to have accomplished some of the fantastic stuff they said about him is a keen intellect that was not bound by the tech of the time. The Exploits of Jesus look more reasonable every time another Popular Science is delivered to my ... okay... my parents'... okay... the library in the town I grew up i-.... ok... the much bigger library a town over.

ICJ wrote:It's not 50/50 that the man existed. Come on. Both "sides" aren't equal.

Worm wrote:Eat a motherfucking dick you chud.

I take it from your tone that you do not agree with me or something.

50/50 is the BEST you can hope for. It's like a million academics agree that the guy existed in some form and 10 zany Philberts went out and registered christisafraud.net and you are joining up with a bunch of dumb fuckers who couldn't even get the dot com version of their stupid agenda/website. Is this what you have become, Worm? The kind of guy who follows the .NET second class movement on controversial topics? You know where this shit flies, Worm? Do you know where this is accepted? Do you? On JOLTCOUNTRY MOTHERFUCKING DOT US YOU SKULLCAP FUCKING DICK RIDDLE!

I just expect more from you because I care about you.

When I see you sign onto this happy horseshit I ask myself what else you might be led to believe. You're going to be one of those people who claim that there were like five "Presidents" of the United States before George Washington if you keep this up. Or one of those people that say the earth has two moons. As someone who feels that he has helped you blossom into the well-read critical thinker that you are today (no kidding or sarcasm: you do amazing work on the Internet and I couldn't be prouder in virtually all of these cases) I worry when I hear these things from you. I don't want to lose you to the "Andy Kaufman Lives" Big Foot costume-wearing type. A Big Foot costume is not flattering in any sense, one that metaphorically, and not metaphorically, wrestles with women even less so.

No proof, I do not give a fuck. Why is it that the New Testament must hold so much more merit than other ancient religious text, its contemporary popularity?

Sales?

I don't see why Thor, Zeus, and Ra shouldn't get a fair shake.

Hey man, Jesus didn't get a comic for over 400 issues. Those guys are doing fine. Besides, you can make an argument that there was essentially one Messiah that wore a different face and that we've called him Jesus, Thor, Apollo, Mohammed, the Great Hunter and (wait for it) Rickey Jackson in our ignorance to describe what it was we were seeing. I mean, I'd put Jesus in MY "Saints Wall of Fame," wouldn't you?

You know, that's an interesting point. What ever happened to the 'other' gods that were just as important to those believers as J.C. is to the christians? So people just stop believeing and the gods dissapear forever? or worse, they end up as a marvel comic. Can't wait for that movie. I know there's a long list of has-been gods that we as a society don't need anymore. It's like Windows, you know. We used to need a bunch of different programs to make our shit work. Then Windows came along and unified all the little programs into one big easy-to-use conglomeration. We used to need a bunch of gods for weather, crops, destiny, shit like that. Then this Western god came along and took over all the jobs that the old gods were dealing with. Cosmic Window God. What a concept, eh?


THE
BILL GATES IS JESUS
AARDVARK


(now THAT'S scary)

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I bolded the part before the word "Jew" because it's how I personally read all sentences dealing with Jewish people anyway. But Jesus is not historically undocumented, unless you are saying that the crap John, Peter, Matthew and ... I can't remember the names of the rest of them, anyway, if you are saying that those guys aren't credible then you have to add that in when you doubt the existence of Jesus.

Haha. You're a goofball. Why would anyone think that the bible is credible if they claim it's a work of fiction?

When people pull this "Jesus was a historical figure who was portrayed dramatically in the bible", they fall into a trap. Basically they oust their primary source as a somewhat fictional work. It's like trying to prove Saint Nicholas existed by repeating 'The Night Before Christmas'.

Of course, it's interesting that if there were a book of Judas, it would be one MORE chapter in the Bible that stated the historic adventues of Jesus and just might tip the scales to make atheists admit that the guy existed!!!

There are like dozens gospels. Mary, Judas, ect, ect. Four were just decided upon in ancient boring times. Do multiple retellings of the same story move it more towards FACT or MYTHOLOGY?

I mean, goddamn, the atheists are right about most of the horeshit coming from that religion. There is no need to take it this far. I think, to most reasonable people, the war has been won and the battle is over!

Yeah. It's over. We're not aborting babies because we're worried about our eternal souls (which don't exist either), I'd call that a win.

This is just being mean to Christians, at this point, and my internal registers, detectors and alarm systems when it comes to cyberbullying (which is what the whole "Christ never existed" movement is) sets off.

There's no proof on either side. I think that's something that gets buried when loads of people get so used to never being CONFRONTED that they just assume popularly accepted truth is backed up somehow. This is why people think Noah's ark was real.

All the shit they said he can do is within the realm of science, anyway, and if we survive long enough we'll live like the Son of God ourselves. If you think that mankind won't one day turn water into wine with our elemental transmogrifiers, or walk on water with our po(r)table gravity nullifiers, which I am sure you do not, then all it takes for Christ to have accomplished some of the fantastic stuff they said about him is a keen intellect that was not bound by the tech of the time. The Exploits of Jesus look more reasonable every time another Popular Science is delivered to my ... okay... my parents'... okay... the library in the town I grew up i-.... ok... the much bigger library a town over.

See, this is where it gets all too da vinci code for me. It all falls apart when you shrug and assure me that "someone is on this". Either he was an inspiration in ideology or he was a fucking magician, make up your damn mind.

ICJ wrote:50/50 is the BEST you can hope for. It's like a million academics agree that the guy existed in some form

I can live with "some form", really I can. Though when people get into their own personal Jesus fantasy and puzzle it all out for themselves, and then have the fucking balls to insist that's the truth of the matter it pisses me off.

I just don't think you realize that to most people saying "Christ was a great man, but just a man" encourages these people who think he's telling them to bomb people protesting Jerry Falwell's funeral.

When I see you sign onto this happy horseshit I ask myself what else you might be led to believe.

Oh fuck off. Effectively you're taking a 2000 year old fish tale (as far as anyone can really know), and assuming it must be true because a bunch of bought out academic pigs agree.

Fuck you man. I'm sorry that I don't agree with your unalienable right to state absolutes about something that is inherently unknowable and back yourself up with academics who are making just as much of a guess as yourself. I know *I* have to be the guy being caught up with something, and you're like so much Glenn Beck, going with conventional wisdom.

However, you just really feel old when you do this. Is it so fucking impossible for you to understand that any matter like this will always be left up to the majority?

Basically, you planted your feet, and sternly told me "Don't you see, in a country with a Christian majority it's easiest for everyone to simply pander to them.". I totally understand that. That's precisely why for something completely unknowable I lean towards the minority vote, to be a prick.

Faith is completely acceptable, people who want to believe in Jesus but pretend it doesn't require faith are not acceptable.

AArdvark wrote:We used to need a bunch of gods for weather, crops, destiny, shit like that. Then this Western god came along and took over all the jobs that the old gods were dealing with. Cosmic Window God. What a concept, eh?

You just sorta described "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Robert Heinlein. Good book.

Worm wrote:When people pull this "Jesus was a historical figure who was portrayed dramatically in the bible", they fall into a trap. Basically they oust their primary source as a somewhat fictional work. It's like trying to prove Saint Nicholas existed by repeating 'The Night Before Christmas'.

It isn't like that at all, but okay! When not talking about miracles, I am under the impression that a lot of the stuff in the new testament from Matthew, Mark and Luke and so forth hold up contextually. For instance, it's like any BBS: don't talk about religion or politics on a BBS and you're likely to get a good sense of the times. Matthew doesn't describe Jesus healing people by laying on hands and then segue to something Da Vinci invented. He stays true to his time period. If that isn't right then I am happy to reconsider the whole thing.

There are like dozens gospels. Mary, Judas, ect, ect. Four were just decided upon in ancient boring times. Do multiple retellings of the same story move it more towards FACT or MYTHOLOGY?

Probably fact. When I was a juror on that trial I learned that the natural process for credibility seems to be that you accept the first thing you hear, you go, "Hrmpf!" the first time you hear the opposite, and you lean towards believing the truth based on the number of witnesses for each side later. So if Judas, who became the most hated man in history until Hitler came around, had a gospel of Jesus then sure, the stuff that agreed with everyone else would be extra-believable.

There's no proof on either side. I think that's something that gets buried when loads of people get so used to never being CONFRONTED that they just assume popularly accepted truth is backed up somehow. This is why people think Noah's ark was real.

There is something that has the great majority of academics state that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. You seem to discount this fairly often. Recall that your belief: that nobody is sure, is in the great minority.

It all falls apart when you shrug and assure me that "someone is on this". Either he was an inspiration in ideology or he was a fucking magician, make up your damn mind.

Someone IS on this! Goddamn, man! They're in universities all over the world. From what I understand, they'll say, "Yeah, there was a Jesus of Nazareth, no, he probably wasn't God Incarnate, but definitely lived between 4 B.C. and 30 A.D."

I can live with "some form", really I can. Though when people get into their own personal Jesus fantasy and puzzle it all out for themselves, and then have the fucking balls to insist that's the truth of the matter it pisses me off.

Well, that's only fair because you doubting the existence of the Son of God probably pisses him off!! Haha, of course it doesn't, he's Jesus not Robocop.

Oh fuck off. Effectively you're taking a 2000 year old fish tale (as far as anyone can really know), and assuming it must be true because a bunch of bought out academic pigs agree.

Well, if we've established that the reason religious scholars are all buying into this nonsense is because they are being PAID OFF then I think we've done good work here. This is the kind of insanity I can subscribe to. Additionally, I would like my check

Fuck you man. I'm sorry that I don't agree with your unalienable right to state absolutes about something that is inherently unknowable and back yourself up with academics who are making just as much of a guess as yourself.

They're not making guesses for fuck's sake. You have a pretty goddamn low opinion of university professors and researchers if that's your take on things. If you want to dislike them, dislike them because half of them speak English as well as that eyehole-hat wearing guy from Fat Albert does while being drown in a Polish toilet.

I know *I* have to be the guy being caught up with something, and you're like so much Glenn Beck, going with conventional wisdom.

That hurts. I'm going to punch your first daughter in the ovaries for that.

However, you just really feel old when you do this.

Ha ha ha, I feel old all right, "trusting" scholars, scientists and learned men on whether or not the most influential human being of all-time was real or some hoax perpetrated by people in a world without the imagination to see universal value in the wheel. Even the Muslims believe the guy existed and the list of shit they don't believe is the only thing bigger than the list of things they do. I feel so old the 700 year-living fuckers in the beginning of the Bible seem to have died in tragedy, so early and unforeseen was their deaths.

Is it so fucking impossible for you to understand that any matter like this will always be left up to the majority?

The majority of what? Scientists? Yes, it is impossible for me to believe that an uneducated minority will one day decide what did or did not happen. Anything else and you are in the liner notes for Persona 2.

Basically, you planted your feet, and sternly told me "Don't you see, in a country with a Christian majority it's easiest for everyone to simply pander to them.".

The consensus of people in this field is that the man existed. Pandering to the Christian majority would be in accepting that he had super-powers.

Faith is completely acceptable, people who want to believe in Jesus but pretend it doesn't require faith are not acceptable.

Says who? You? There is a hell of a lot of faith you have to digest if you are into that sort of thing. The guy's life was never intended to be part of it, just the shit he was able to do for being the son of God. Just like how nobody intended for people to wonder if there really was a city called Bethlehem or that there was a sea called the Red Sea or that wine was delicious. Besides, you can't discount Christ without having similar doubt for Moses, Mohammed, David and so forth. Unless you want to lump them all in with Noah. But it's my understanding (only because I took a class on it at Syracuse) that much of the old testament is very consistent with some very, for lack of a better word, universal myths, but that becomes less true when you look at stories from the new testament (although some universal stuff is still there, like the world ending in fire and people getting ball wrenches).

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:It isn't like that at all, but okay! When not talking about miracles, I am under the impression that a lot of the stuff in the new testament from Matthew, Mark and Luke and so forth hold up contextually. For instance, it's like any BBS: don't talk about religion or politics on a BBS and you're likely to get a good sense of the times. Matthew doesn't describe Jesus healing people by laying on hands and then segue to something Da Vinci invented. He stays true to his time period. If that isn't right then I am happy to reconsider the whole thing.

I'm sorry. Do you really believe I'm trying to shed doubt on the period in which they were written? Why is it so insane to suggest that Jesus is fiction when so much of the book is fiction? People did write fiction back in those days.

Probably fact.

I can live with probably. Just not 'obviously' or 'of course'.

When I was a juror on that trial I learned that the natural process for credibility seems to be that you accept the first thing you hear, you go, "Hrmpf!" the first time you hear the opposite, and you lean towards believing the truth based on the number of witnesses for each side later. So if Judas, who became the most hated man in history until Hitler came around, had a gospel of Jesus then sure, the stuff that agreed with everyone else would be extra-believable.

Again, you're using your wonderful adult mind to justify childhood naivete. The simple fact is that you agree with the experts who really don't have any proof, you're treating this with all the gravity of a Colgate advert. 'Four out of five dentists believe in Jesus? I better too'.

There is something that has the great majority of academics state that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. You seem to discount this fairly often. Recall that your belief: that nobody is sure, is in the great minority.

Well, there fucking isn't anything. You can call professors, you can ask old friends to set me straight, you can google until your fucking eyes bleed. There's nothing out there, and the majority only agrees because they're Christian, and having faith doesn't stick it to the heathens well enough or because pissing off the mobs might ruin their chances at tenure.

Someone IS on this! Goddamn, man! They're in universities all over the world. From what I understand, they'll say, "Yeah, there was a Jesus of Nazareth, no, he probably wasn't God Incarnate, but definitely lived between 4 B.C. and 30 A.D."

Yeah, they're on the issue, with their GUESSES. When the fuck are you going to realize that academics generally are about as well informed as the average pleb?

Well, if we've established that the reason religious scholars are all buying into this nonsense is because they are being PAID OFF then I think we've done good work here. This is the kind of insanity I can subscribe to. Additionally, I would like my check

They we're bought out by a society that wants Jesus to have a disproportionately small burden of proof when compared to various historical characters. It's not about money, it's that anyone who goes against the nodding mob has to deal with their insipid chanting.

They're not making guesses for fuck's sake. You have a pretty goddamn low opinion of university professors and researchers if that's your take on things.

You think they're pro-guessers? That scientifically when you have no proof(at all) you should just make up a back story that makes your religion sound good? You've got a high opinion of that?

Ha ha ha, I feel old all right, "trusting" scholars, scientists and learned men on whether or not the most influential human being of all-time was real or some hoax perpetrated by people in a world without the imagination to see universal value in the wheel.

Er, no more of a giant hoax than all previous invented religion. Unless you believe that the Viking/Greek/Egyptian traditions were inspired in a similar way to the Christian tradition, it's really not so much to say this religion too may be simply a robust mythology.

In trusting scholars (who really just are Christians whom think faith isn't good enough, or just want their tenure) you cease to think for yourself.

Even the Muslims believe the guy existed and the list of shit they don't believe is the only thing bigger than the list of things they do. I feel so old the 700 year-living fuckers in the beginning of the Bible seem to have died in tragedy, so early and unforeseen was their deaths.

Oh yeah, the Jews and Muslims believe in Jesus too, so why don't I? This is such a stupid fucking argument I just puked all over my boxers.

The majority of what? Scientists? Yes, it is impossible for me to believe that an uneducated minority will one day decide what did or did not happen. Anything else and you are in the liner notes for Persona 2.

Haha, I like how we went from academics to scientists. Oh, I'm sure if you ask a biologist about history you're going to get some fine and insightful conversation. Look, the scientists aren't on the issue because there isn't evidence.

The consensus of people in this field is that the man existed. Pandering to the Christian majority would be in accepting that he had super-powers.

It's all the same. You're just negatively cooking up a reason to claim he wasn't divine, but in that attempt you validate their beliefs. Also, the people in the field are just guessing, because it earns them less grief, they are probably mostly christian, and they've bought into this kind of groupthink where enough similar guesses without any evidence can become evidence itself.

Besides, you can't discount Christ without having similar doubt for Moses, Mohammed, David and so forth.

Haha, you mean David who killed a giant with a sling, and Moses who talked to god? I have similar doubt for all beings only mentioned in reference to religions with no independent verification of existing.

At least the buddhists have the brains to point out that it doesn't matter if someone confronts them with this.

So let me sum this up, just for the benefit of me understanding the argument here.

Did this man known as Jesus actually exist? Probably, athough there's no concrete proof. They could have made the guy up out of whole cloth (like superman) or simply exaggerated some mensch carpenter.

Was the written text, now known as the bible, extensively edited for the benefit of the organization in charge? Probably yes, but again there's no concrete proof.

(FYI they did just find a copy of the gospel of Judas recently. Interesting reading, I guess)

Did this person called Jesus perform feats that were extra ordinary? Probaly not, but again, we'll never know for sure. He could have managed some stage magician illusions for the benefit of his cause, or the abovementiond text editing to enhance his position. If there was any deliberate rewriting of the testaments then it's a good probablility that the originals were destroyed to avoid high level embarrassment.


Summation: Nobody will ever know for sure. The more closely one examines the issue, the more it delves into other unexplained phenomena like the Roswell UFO crash of 1947 and The Kennedy assassination of 1963. There's not enough hard facts and too close a scrutiny of second and third hand (or Nth-hand) hearsay.


THE
COLD CASE
AARDVARK

AArdvark wrote:(FYI they did just find a copy of the gospel of Judas recently. Interesting reading, I guess)

The book of enoch is another thing that got bounced, if you want to read up on more of that stuff.

Nah, the whole concept of religion won't affect me in any way so I leave it to those that need it. It would be interesting to see what other gospels were not included and why. What's that Apocrypha thing that was also taken out? Some weird stuff floating around.


THE
LUNATIC FRINGE
AARDVARK

People use enoch to make arguments about aliens, which makes it way more interesting than vanilla religion. I'd like to leave things that don't affect me alone, but fuck, I'm 21 guys. Stop trying to infect me with being middle aged.

Worm wrote:People use enoch to make arguments about aliens, which makes it way more interesting than vanilla religion. I'd like to leave things that don't affect me alone, but fuck, I'm 21 guys. Stop trying to infect me with being middle aged.

This is the only part I still have a problem with. You're trying to depict your youthful energy as some kind of bonus, when in fact you're coming off as the "HURRRPMH WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE ALL ACTORS AND I AM THE ONLY REAL PERSON" fellow by thinking you know something the great, vast, majority of religious scholars don't. It's infuriating.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:This is the only part I still have a problem with. You're trying to depict your youthful energy as some kind of bonus,

Just because you can't get it back don't be bitter.

when in fact you're coming off as the "HURRRPMH WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE ALL ACTORS AND I AM THE ONLY REAL PERSON" fellow

Psh, I'd never say that in any sort of public forum

by thinking you know something the great, vast, majority of religious scholars don't. It's infuriating.

Haha, no. You're wrong. My point is that the scholars are doing the same thing as me, and despite Aardvark's gentle prodding you still don't get it.

You're going to stand up as a bastion for something that doesn't concern you and that's essentially unknowable, why the fuck would you do that? The answer eludes me, and the only conclusion I can reach is: somewhere along the line the 'ICJ' who would understand this died and gave way to the 'ICJ' who cannot understand that the issue of Jesus' existence is indeed unknowable and up in the air, due to the stunning lack of proof.

I'm sorry that you lost the ability to declare the world in error, but I have not. The world in it's vehement defense of Jesus is wrong.

Worm wrote:

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:This is the only part I still have a problem with. You're trying to depict your youthful energy as some kind of bonus,

Just because you can't get it back don't be bitter.

Who's bitter? I sleep like a chloroformed baby not being the cliche douchebag who thinks he's the only one to see that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. This -- ALL of this -- has come about because you think you know better than thousands of academics with advanced degrees that have studied the subject for the majority of their adult life. Anything you say or can say is tainted by that irrefutable factoid.

Haha, no. You're wrong. My point is that the scholars are doing the same thing as me, and despite Aardvark's gentle prodding you still don't get it.

They're not! Goddammit man, you have a second-grader's grasp of what it is to study a subject. That's right, Worm, they all just pointed to some verse in the Bible and declared, "HE LIVES!!!!!" and then spent the rest of their professional lives grading freshmen essay papers. That's all that went on. There was certainly no attempt at coming to the conclusion that some guy named Jesus lived 2007 years ago. Because that's what the educated have a history of doing: accepting on blind faith the shit the Catholic Church has to say. *You're* the only blindly discounting any text that references the guy. (Which makes sense, as I say "Jesus Christ" in exasperation often, and you have been discounting every one of my excellent posts.)

Again. It comes down to the fact that Worm from Forty Fort, PA knows better than people who do this sort of shit for their job even though you have absolutely no demonstrative skills, knowledge or abilities in this area. It is just as ridiculous for Internet Jones in Cowshit, Colorado to say the same. You are validating the arguments of every dumb moron you encounter on the Internet who spouts a worthless opinion about a game *he* never played, but *you* did, by doing all of this. You are giving respect and attention and credibility to the ignorant. This is so amazingly unlike you that it constitutes a total reversal in everything good about you.

I'm sorry that you lost the ability to declare the world in error, but I have not. The world in it's vehement defense of Jesus is wrong.

I'm sorry that you lost the machine that allowed you to live as a tenured professor in religious studies for thirty years and then hop back to 2007 at the same physical age you were when you left because frankly, I don't think CSI: Las Vegas has the balls to kill off the gap-toothed chick from Memento, but I sure as fuck don't want to wonder for five months until season 8 starts.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Who's bitter? I sleep like a chloroformed baby not being the cliche douchebag who thinks he's the only one to see that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. This -- ALL of this -- has come about because you think you know better than thousands of academics with advanced degrees that have studied the subject for the majority of their adult life. Anything you say or can say is tainted by that irrefutable factoid.

Research of what? Honestly, can you even posit what they would research to make themselves sure of this? I fucking defy you to come up with an answer here. There is nothing to research. The only way one could think that Jesus "obviously" or "of course" existed is to have faith, or to have never thought about it.

They're not! Goddammit man, you have a second-grader's grasp of what it is to study a subject. That's right, Worm, they all just pointed to some verse in the Bible and declared, "HE LIVES!!!!!" and then spent the rest of their professional lives grading freshmen essay papers. That's all that went on. There was certainly no attempt at coming to the conclusion that some maggot named Jesus lived 2007 years ago. Because that's what the educated have a history of doing: accepting on blind faith the shit the Catholic Church has to say.

You're again just assuming someone is on top of this. If you found anything worthwhile you would have linked it and put it to rest awhile ago. I don't know if you're trying to cope with being full of shit or reveling in being full of shit.

*You're* the only blindly discounting any text that references the guy. (Which makes sense, as I say "Jesus Christ" in exasperation often, and you have been discounting every one of my excellent posts.)

Haha, you mean the texts written after the new Testament became highly popular?

Again. It comes down to the fact that Worm from Forty Fort, PA knows better than people who do this sort of shit for their job even though you have absolutely no demonstrative skills, knowledge or abilities in this area.

What sort of shit? Can you explain to me what the average Jesus Researcher does to bring home the hard evidence that lets Vitriola or you state beyond a shadow of a motherfucking doubt that he was an underdog philosopher co-opted by the big bad church?

If you actually cared or thought about this anywhere outside of this thread I might actually be swayed by you. Though you're reeling over something that's effectively a non-issue to you (indeed, you didn't even know people who doubted the christ existed until recently).

Jesus AArdvark just said basically what I did

They could have made the guy up out of whole cloth (like superman) or simply exaggerated some mensch carpenter.

Why don't you go lay some misdirected nonsense about how he's invalidated himself for disagreeing with you on something you wouldn't give a fuck about if everyone agreed with your opinion on it?

I sleep like a chloroformed baby

It's throwaway lines like this that keep me coming back to this BBS and RobB's games again and again. IF I had had a mouthful of soda it would have been all over my plasma screen.

Anyway, Is it the search for the absolute proof...no wait, is it the search for the absolute fact of J.C's existence that you are all disputing? That the lifelong scholars and archeologists know more than us lowly..er, non-scholars?
I guess if the said scholars and archeologists had any serious news about the whole evidence thing they would run to the nearest tablet PC and publish soonest. Maybe there are things that we, out-of-the-loopers don't have access to. If a tree falls in the woods, ect. What good is having facts like that kept secret? Or at least secret to an inner circle? (This is all assuming that there is something to be kept quiet about)
I mean, what difference would any of this make in the long run?


THE
DON'T BOGART
THAT CHRIST
AARDVARK

Worm wrote:Research of what? Honestly, can you even posit what they would research to make themselves sure of this? I fucking defy you to come up with an answer here. There is nothing to research. The only way one could think that Jesus "obviously" or "of course" existed is to have faith, or to have never thought about it.

Texts from that era, stained-glass candle holders and lawn ornaments. How the fuck should I know?

You're again just assuming someone is on top of this.

Well, yes. There are enough rage-fueled Internet morons who revolve their entire life around discounting Christianity that if there WAS real proof that there was no one in history who fulfilled that role, they'd never, ever shut up about it. It would be like Linux crossed with Firefox. Instead, they are a mostly-silent and uninteresting extreme minority. Let me put it this way. When I say I use Internet Explorer, at least two people tell me to use Firefox, and that's just on this BBS. That's like 15% of the total active userbase. If there were any real evidence to support your believe it wouldn't just be me and you talking about this.

If you found anything worthwhile you would have linked it and put it to rest awhile ago. I don't know if you're trying to cope with being full of shit or reveling in being full of shit.

What am I going to find? I'm sorry that the only people living around Year Zero who happened to write shit down got their stuff into the Bible, a text you discount wholly because some other hyperactive atheist that no doubt still exchanges gifts on Christmas because, hey, he doesn't want to seem like a weirdo in real life, just the net, told you to discount all of it. In two thousand years someone is going to doubt the existence of George Washington and discount his mug being on the side of a goddamn mountain because, hey, that could be anyone. He'll have legends disproved about him as well, like that business with the cherry tree and how he somehow lived among the political elite that allowed themselves to be politically influenced by the French for a considerable amount of time without killing every last one of them with his bare hands and wooden teeth. "Washington would have been this nation's first serial murderer," they'll say, because they are idiots. "He didn't even have his picture on a coin in his lifetime!!!!, which is an argument floating around out there to disprove the life of Christ.

Haha, you mean the texts written after the new Testament became highly popular?

I don't know when it became popular. My interest in events that took place before my birth equal that of someone giving me directions to a place I expressed no interest in going to, but the person doesn't care. "Oh. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that intersection, you go west. East? Haha, right, east. Yeah, I know that building. Sure. You can't see it from the road? No, I'll find it... Sounds good! I'll see you there!"

What sort of shit? Can you explain to me what the average Jesus Researcher does to bring home the hard evidence that lets Vitriola or you state beyond a shadow of a motherfucking doubt that he was an underdog philosopher co-opted by the big bad church?

No, but I can't detail the process the average researcher uses to confirm that AIDS comes from a virus and not the hand of God, either. I guess you got me. I can tell you that the average Jesus Researcher fucks his wife missionary style. I can tell you that.

If you actually cared or thought about this anywhere outside of this thread I might actually be swayed by you.

Well, I don't think anyone is actually too invested here. But at age 22 you have completely eliminated any chance that anyone over the Internet can change your opinion about anything, which is nice to see, as it normally takes people until they are several months older to acquire that ability.

Though you're reeling over something that's effectively a non-issue to you (indeed, you didn't even know people who doubted the christ existed until recently).

I don't have a complete mental archive of the stupid shit believed by the kind of people you shoot at in "Rise of the Triad," no. But then I didn't know that some people think that Stephen King shot John Lennon either until someone made me aware of it.

Why don't you go lay some misdirected nonsense about how he's invalidated himself for disagreeing with you on something you wouldn't give a fuck about if everyone agreed with your opinion on it?

Hey now. Let's not say things we can't take back.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:

You're again just assuming someone is on top of this.

Well, yes.

Ah, well. No one is.

What am I going to find?

I dunno, people who are fed up with guys like me and my bullshit? There are articles citing the scientific evidence for 9/11 but not historical evidence for Jesus, what should I think?

No, but I can't detail the process the average researcher uses to confirm that AIDS comes from a virus and not the hand of God, either.

Microscopes and shit. You can't even ballpark how someone validates Jesus, because no one can.

Well, I don't think anyone is actually too invested here. But at age 22 you have completely eliminated any chance that anyone over the Internet can change your opinion about anything, which is nice to see, as it normally takes people until they are several months older to acquire that ability.

21 asshole, and I've changed my opinion on things a million times thanks to the Internet. If you were gonna you'd have to start somewhere beside "Jesus = Pope John Paul II".

Hey now. Let's not say things we can't take back.

Why not? Why ever would I want to renege on being correct?

Worm wrote:

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:

You're again just assuming someone is on top of this.

Well, yes.

Ah, well. No one is.

You discounting them isn't proof of shit. Jesus Fucking Christ, dipshit:


"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. "

"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. "

"Other scholars assert that Jesus was an Essene, a sect of Judaism not mentioned in the New Testament.[34] Still other scholars assert that Jesus led a new apocalyptic sect, possibly related to John the Baptist,[35] which became Early Christianity after the Great Commission spread his teachings to the Gentiles.[36] "

"Since most scholars hold that Jesus was an Aramaic-speaking Jew living in Galilee around 30 AD/CE, it is highly improbable that he had a Greek personal name."

"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. "

"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] "

"^ "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. "

"Of the non-Christian writings from that time that have been preserved, very few mention Jesus or Christianity, and for that matter few of their authors showed much interest in Judea or the Near East in general. Nonetheless, there are passages relevant to Jesus in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger – as well as others. "

Refute all that shit and you are well on your way!

Microscopes and shit. You can't even ballpark how someone validates Jesus, because no one can.

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

21 asshole, and I've changed my opinion on things a million times thanks to the Internet. If you were gonna you'd have to start somewhere beside "Jesus = Pope John Paul II".

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.

Why not? Why ever would I want to renege on being correct?

The fuck have you even remotely been correct about? You are asking us all to believe you over, literally, hundreds of intelligent scholars with -- unlike you -- no axe to grind, hundreds of historical records, hundreds of surviving written texts, Occam's Razor, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. EVEN IF you were functionally illterate and retarded enough to discount all that, you have to account for the fact that any time someone says something about God on the net a bunch of hopeless, acne-pitted virgins chime in with, "WHAT GOD LOL" but they don't do the same for Jesus of Nazareth because not being "right" to those dumb fuckers is their kryptonite, and 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.

You desperate, conspiracy-theory-grabbing CHILDMIND.