"I find the teachings attributed to him compelling in the same way that I find the teachings of the Buddha or the Taoists compelling."

It is the first time you talked in terms of "attributed" instead of arguing as if there was a real known truth. People, even you, can believe in whatever wacked out religious ideas you want. If you start posting them to public discussion boards, you probably should get used to people challenging you. You know, if you post your views on a discussion board, you would be willing to discuss them without trying to claim the the person you are having the discussion with of being displeased. Indeed I was snickering and having a great laugh at many of your responses. I can find some compelling stuff in in religion, but not enough to dig trough all the dogmatic outdated BS to get to it. As someone once said "It is a waist of time to dig trough a pile of @#$%& looking for a kernel of corn. Yes, you may find some corn, but there are other far more apatizing places to find corn, to eat."

No, sorry to disappoint you though, It does not "displease" me that you believe in someone I think a myth. The thing that happened was, you posted your "beliefs" to a discussion board, I chose to discuss them with you. You then accused me of being "displeased" because I discussed the issue with you and asked questions you seeming can not answer.

Now that we both finally agree that that there is no basis for making a claim that anything attributed to Christ was actually said by a real person (as in a real "Christ") and that Christ should be talked about squarely as a belief, we can progress.

I am interested in how you think that Christianity's traditions validate Christian figures, like Christ, while the traditions of other religions do not validate the existence of the figures in those religions. Or is it that you are saying that the traditions of accent Egypt do validate the existence of Ra and Hathor? Are you really saying that traditions validate myth as real?

Were you ever a believer? I know the board is full of ex-mo's, never mo's, once believers, never believers etc.?

Been fighting against Christians for my rights ever since

I thought it was a pretty decent discussion that we were having, MJ. The thing is, I'm not really interested in proving to you that Jesus existed. I can't do that. I think that the New Testament is adequate evidence (for me) that he did exist. Obviously, you feel otherwise.

I don't find it such a stretch that there was a wandering teacher/preacher in the mideast two thousand years ago. I don't consider that to be a "whacked out religous idea." I don't make supernatural claims for him.

I do not agree that "there is no basis for making a claim that anything attributed to Christ was actually said by a real person." I think that much of what was attributed to him was said by him.

I established previously that real, verifiable people can have myths spring up around the core of their stories. A myth about a person does not necessarily invalidate the existence of that person.

The evidence from the New Testament is obviously far too weak for you, and that's okay. I understand that POV but I don't personally agree with it.

"The thing is, I'm not really interested in proving to you that Jesus existed." YOu see, I was not making the case that Jesus existed or not. I repeatedly asked how you knew that Jesus actually said what was claimed he said.

There is a big difference between arguing over the person's existance and arguing over the matter of a quote being attributed to that person.

It was clear to me that you were not really listening or responding to what I was actually saying. Honestly, it came across as a little disrepectful.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 11:01PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was clear to me that you were not really listening or responding to what I was actually saying. Honestly, it came across as a little disrepectful.

Then you have the option of not discussing things with me. Or is that too obvious?

No, I have the opinion that you were not really paying attention to what I ACTUALLY WROTE.

Summer, you might be interested in Bart Ehrman's new book,
"Did Jesus Exist?" It does a good job of retuting the mythers. He is a well known Biblical scholar, historian and agnostic. Good book. Sorry to hijack the discussion, but I thought you might enjoy the book.

He should be providing credible evidence to back up his claim. Thre myhthers don't have to disprove anything.

And not, what roman scholars said after the fact is not proof.

And the discution was never about the existance of Christ.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 11:14PM by MJ.

I was talking to Summer, not you and if you had actually read the book you would see that Ehrman did back up his claims.

So take your whining to the Admins and see what they care, I don't.

Yes, MJ , you can be as obnoxious as you wish and you can post to anyone you want even when the issue doesn't concern you and your opinion isn't wanted.. You not only can do it, I assume you will. I was simply pointing out that I was not talking to you an d, BTW, I do not care what you think about Ehrman or anything else. I was recommending a book to Summer.Now, good night.

I wouldn't mind studying Jesus again at some point. I took a course in the New Testament in college many decades ago and I really enjoyed it. That's where I was introduced to John Domenic Crossan's take on the parables (my interpretation of his writing is that he sees them as Zen-like koans meant to stop and break through conventional thinking patterns.) I also studied source and redaction criticism, but it's been too long for me to fully draw from either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 11:25PM by summer.

I have read some of Crossan's books. He is good.

The one on the parables is fantastic. At the time I found it mind-bending. For the first time, I thought I understood what Jesus was trying to do. The book is called, "The Dark Interval."

I haven't read that one. I'll have to put it on my list