sorry, meant to say "beating a dead horse here." |
The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that. It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension. |
It’s the topic of the thread. I know- it’s disconcerting to you when a thread doesn’t devolve into a rant fest about how your mom made you stay at your neighbor’s house and they brought you to youth group and you were scarred for life. Or your wine and book club mean girled a mutual friend and you are too weenie to call them out. Check the thread topic! It’s about the historicity of Jesus. If you don’t like the topic, don’t click. |
It's the religion forum, not the history forum. The "historicity" of Jesus has little or nothing to do with the religion. What do we really know about Jesus's divinity outside of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and some writings of Paul? |
Sorry you are having trouble following. The PP has repeatedly claimed that posters on this thread have denied historical Jesus. That is 100% false. We were discussing the topic until the skinhead troll and you derailed it. |
DP. He’s comparing them to holocaust-denying skinheads. You know, the extreme right nut jobs. Reading comprehension is everything. |
DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses? |
Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed. |
Right. He resorted to ad hominem attacks. |
No, you are just offended that people who deny the historicity of Jesus are called to account, and can’t flog their mysticism here. Climate change is real ✅ Holocaust happened ✅ Earth is not flat ✅ Vaccines work ✅ Jesus walked the earth as a real man; he existed ✅ |
Where? Show me? Put up or shut up |
Again, nobody here denied historical Jesus Troll. |
“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“ 12/24 9:23 from this thread Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts. Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters. |
That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold. If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed. |
“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“ 12/19 15:35 No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish. Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge? |