"Good point, but you will never convince mythiscists because they 1. Don't know what they are talking about in regards to ancient history and evidence because they have no education in those things . 2. Don't want to know and will not bother to listen to or read anything that doesn't support their preconceived notions. 3. Do not have enough knowledge or education to tell which sources and authors are reliable and which are not.4, Think they know everything there is to know on the subject without bothering to actually read or study anything."
Here is what I read:
1. If you aren't convinced by the scholarship of the possibility of a historical Jesus, you are a mystiscist.
2. If you aren't convinced by the scholarship of the possibility of a historical Jesus, you are not educated in history.
3. If you aren't convinced by the scholarship of the possibility of a historical Jesus, you don't want to hear or read anything contrary to your opinion.
4. If you aren't convinced by the scholarship of the possibility of a historical Jesus, you don't know how to properly evaluate the the material about a historical Jesus.
5. If you aren't convinced by the scholarship of the possibility of a historical Jesus, you are an insufferable know-it-all.
I was done with this topic for a few months until you decided to insult everyone who holds a different opinion than you.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2012 08:51PM by jacob.
I have corresponded with Grape Nephi and he firmly believes there was a real Jesus and has written extensively on the mythicists and their errors. Maybe you could try the search function on Post Mo and find his posts there. Good Lord, you people have no clue about anything. i am a Christian, Grape Nephi believes Jesus never existed and Ehrman is a Christian apologist. Wrong on all counts. Educate yourselves because you look foolish and uninformed.
* what Grape Nephi does or does not think re: Historical Jesus.
* what your professions of belief happen to be.
* what Ehrman is or is not.
My statement w.r.t. Grape Nephi (who BTW I have also corresponded with over things you and he have disagreed about) had nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with his scholarship and respect for other posters while engaged in dialog with them, wether he agreed with them or not.
Kindly do not put words in my mouth that I clearly never wrote. You wonder why people think you are a contentious and disagreeable person, and then you go and pull stunts like that.
Note: I was all set to post this message on the thread headlined: "This whole 'Did Jesus really exist' thing was a joke from the get-go..." but apparently, it got closed rather quickly just before I could hit "Post Message." So it wound up here.
Just merely mention the name "Jesus" and watch all the sparks fly, and heat up to the point of potent explosion!
On top of that, bona dea mentioned some kind of "Jewish war" that supposedly happened very shortly after Jesus' time.
And don't even get me started with all the evangelist BS that is currently plaguing today's world, all in the Jesus name.
And of course, there's Mormonism, with the words "Jesus Christ," in big letters no less, in its official name, with all their cultish manipulative blinding and brain-numbing (not to mention all the other "Christian" religions out there, a lot of them doing the same).
In conclusion:
Granted, I cannot say with any certainty whether this Jesus character actually existed as a mortal man in the Middle-east some 2000 years ago or not, but this much is clear:
Jesus never really saved anyone or helped any blind to see. As a matter of fact, his religions are doing the exact opposite.
"...some kind of "Jewish war" that supposedly happened..."
The short version: in the entire Roman Empire, no conquered region caused more trouble for Rome on a consistent, persistent basis than the province called Judaea. Following initial conquest by Pompei in 63 BCE, the Jews staged minor rebellions at every opportunity. These flared into outright insurrection in 66-73 CE (The First Jewish-Roman War/The Great Revolt), 115-117 CE (Kitos War), and 132-135 CE (Simon bar Kokhba Revolt) and provoked severe responses from Rome.
The long version: The Jews Under Roman Rule : From Pompey to Diocletian : A Study in Political Relations E. Mary Smallwood Brill Academic Publishers, 1976, 2001.
It is one of my issues with this discussion. I am not opposed to the idea of a Jesus archetype. I am opposed to the people who say they know when they have no way of knowing. As I said on another board it seems like a testimony and I have a very quick gag reflex to that type of argument.
and if that is so, then you're right: "real" Christianity is opposed to that "human nature." But then, so are all ethical teachings that merit the name "spiritual." While egoic awareness (taking oneself to be a separate being in a psycho-physical world of equally separate beings and things) is the sense-based norm, spiritual teachings have always asserted that this is an erroneous perception, which could be seen through if one had experiences based on extended or currently latent senses. (Incidentally, that view of human nature tends to see it as merely an extension of "animal nature.")
About your "There are no Christians" comment, figures like Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore would tend to agree:
Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians...If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." He also stated once that Christianity was a good thing, and it needed people to try it.
Tagore once said, "Send Christs, not Christians" when a missionary volunteered some "Christians" to help him build a school.
Incidentally, I'm reminded of Einstein's famous observation of Gandhi on the occasion of Gandhi's funeral--"Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."
... is that they always come to focus on bona dea's self-proclaimed expertise which diverts attention away from the issue at hand.
When the debate doesn't go her way, which it usually doesn't, she either resorts to ad hominem attacks, such as labeling those who disagree mythicists, or, depending on the adversary, takes her mostly deflated ball 'o' hysterical information and runs home like a little bitch with a skinned knee.
In the end, the existence of hysterical JuHEEsus doesn't really matter to anyone other than those scholars and historians who depend on such unlikely notions for their livelihood. In Ehrman's case, for example, were he to admit there is no real evidence to support the existence of hysterical JuHEEsus, he'd be out of a job real quick. Knowing there is no way to conclusively prove or disprove his assertions, Ehrman goes about promoting the fairy tale as fact for the purpose of picking people's pockets.
I’m not a mythicist. I simply don’t subscribe to fairy tales. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I simply question what is promoted as fact when the math doesn’t add up. That a fairy tale might have possibly been based on a living person is of no account. What matters is whether the fairy tale figure holds any veracity. It doesn’t, but Ehrman believes it does which calls into question his other findings.
As always, any evidence to the contrary is more than welcome.
Timothy
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2012 04:34PM by Timothy.
She claims to be attacked, but she goes out of her way to insult and put down people for not believing in a historical Jesus and believe the words of Erhman.
When the claims of historical Jesus are challenged and good evidence requested she starts ad hominem attacks. She does it time and again and has been called on it on this forum as well as PostMo.
If Bona Dea would simply post the best evidence for a historical Jesus once and for all then she would not have to be asked over and over again about it.
And "Read Erhmans Book" is not an answer. We know whats in Erhmans book and it is not good enough in proving a historical Jesus.
When Erhman presents as the best evidence we have of a historical Jesus is 1.Paul 2. Q source for Matthew and Luke 3. Mark 4. M and L ' Sorry but he is going to have to do better then "The Gospels" as being the "Best evidence".
Does Bona Dea have better evidence then the Gospels of a historical Jesus?
No she does not.
When better evidence comes fourth of a historical Jesus we will see if it good enough to change our minds.
when I told her if she wouldn't quantify something then she was talking out her @$$. Which she does on a regular basis. In addition to: moving the goalpost, * claiming nobody else is competently knowledgeable on whatever * topic happens to be under discussion, * becoming shrill and hyper-rude in five posts or less whenever anyone tells her to knock off the b.s. and/or the hysteria.
All that from someone who lays claim to being the expert around here on all things historical, but doesn't even hold a PhD in it, or anything related to it. Shucks, why the f*** should anyone respect her claims if she can't even be bothered to lay the foundation for her own "expertise" (and I use the term loosely)? Her style of armchair quarterbacking is why Americans don't know s*** about the f***ing Bible or its f***ing context in the first place.
Timothy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... is that they always come to focus on bona > dea's self-proclaimed expertise which diverts > attention away from the issue at hand. > > When the debate doesn't go her way, which it > usually doesn't, she either resorts to ad hominem > attacks, such as labeling those who disagree > mythicists, or, depending on the adversary, takes > her mostly deflated ball 'o' hysterical > information and runs home like a little bitch with > a skinned knee. > > In the end, the existence of hysterical JuHEEsus > doesn't really matter to anyone other than those > scholars and historians who depend on it for their > livelihood. In Ehrman's case, for example, were he > to admit there is no real evidence to support the > existence of hysterical JuHEEsus, he'd be out of a > job real quick. Knowing there is no way to > conclusively prove or disprove his assertions, > Ehrman goes about promoting the fairy tale as fact > for the purpose of picking people's pockets. > > I’m not a mythicist. I simply don’t subscribe > to fairy tales. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I > simply question what is promoted as fact when the > math doesn’t add up. That a fairy tale might > have possibly been based on a living person is of > no account. What matters is whether the fairy > tale figure holds any veracity. It doesn’t, but > Ehrman believes it does which calls into question > his other findings. > > As always, any evidence to the contrary is more > than welcome. > > Timothy
So many questions and observations! I'm sorry you don't subscribe to fairy tales -- but I'd love to know where one can sign up for a subscription. I loved *Tangled.* I'm sorry you missed it. But you must be missing so much -- *V Is for Vendetta,* *The Matrix,* the adventures of the not-all-real Robert Langdon. What an impoverished world you must inhabit.
But that wasn't the heart of my comment. I have no idea who or what the "hysterical JuHEEsus" could be. Are you projecting? You seem a bit on the edge -- or even over the edge -- but I can't say the Jesus in the NT text does at all. I'd like some text to back up the accusation this character is "hysterical."
Other than that, all these arguments have been made again and again -- by the fundamentalists denying evolution. The fundamentalists will be glad to tell you that there is a brilliant case to be made for First Mover behind the universe, and the only reason one doesn't hear it in academic circles is because academia is so stodgy and set in its ways. It has nothing to do with there being no real evidence or support for a creator behind evolution. Nothing at all! Academia is corrupt! They all just fear for their jobs! They suppress the real theories and ideas! While you are scrupulously avoiding "fairy tales" such as *The Truman Show* (beware all movies and television! They are of the devil! Er -- I mean -- they are the new fairy tales!) and all higher education (beware learning!! It will take you away from God! Er -- I mean it will take toward evidence and logic instead of hysteria!), perhaps you could take in a Holy Rollers service. You will fit right in, you know.
In these "discussion" so far I have found a accusation that bona dea insulted posters. I guess she said they were acting like b****es with skinned knees. No wait. Somehow I got mixed up. Someone said that *of* bona dea. Hmm. Who is insulting whom? Or perhaps like "the record" -- who cares!
On a another thread, a poster said s/he "didn't care about the record." Give that man/woman a coconut for ringing the bell. Well said. The fundamentalists haven't cared about the fossil record, the geological record for *years.* Now we can all know where they are coming from -- and can sympathize when they zing into hysterical fact denial. The atheists are right behind them.
"When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19]"
From Evidence for Evolution: Is There Evidence for Evolution:
"In debates over evolution and creationism, it is common for creationists' to demand for "proof" of evolution (common descent). Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, though. Scientific theories are provisional and are supported by evidence or data. Proof in science is not the same as proof in mathematics; in science, proof is gradually achieved through the accumulation of evidence which is best explained by one idea or set of ideas. This is what we have with evolution."
From PZ Myers, whom I would assume, you adore, reviewing Ann Coulter, "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?"
"...what I'm going to do here is address one very broad claim that Coulter has made repeatedly, and that is also common to many creationists.
"That claim is that there is no evidence for evolution. I know, to anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with biology, that sounds like a ridiculous statement, like declaring that people can live on nothing but air and sunlight, or that yeti are transdimensional UFO pilots. Yet Coulter baldly makes the absurd claim that "There's no physical evidence for [evolution]", and insists in chapter 8 of her new book that there is "no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record." This is like standing outside in a drenching rainstorm and declaring that there is no evidence that you are getting wet."