Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gospels allegorized a historical Jesus.

Anonymous authors writing 100s of miles away in another language... rrrriiiiiggghhhhtttt 🙄

And who were not part of the Jewish community in Judea.

Decades after supposed events.

[Anonymous]

Right. You got a problem with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Don't bother. Most of the theists here lack reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Don't bother. Most of the theists here lack reading comprehension skills.

Dear Ad Homynim

Text to speech works wonders I
find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

Paul shows no knowledge of Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin birth, an earthly ministry in Galilee, specific miracles, twelve disciples, Judas' betrayal, or teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. His "brother of the Lord" is likely a spiritual brother, not a biological one, consistent with Paul's focus on spiritual family. And, Paul explicitly states his gospel came not from "flesh and blood" (human sources) but from "revelation" (Galatians 1:11-12).

...

The historicist model requires us to believe that the earliest sources knew the least about the most important historical figure of their time, while later, non-eyewitness, anonymous sources knew everything.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

Sounds you're suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount became famous later, after Paul's major influence on Christianity, because of its strong message. Maybe Paul didn't even know about it.

Correct. The parables, the birth/infancy narrative, etc are only found in the Gospels, which were fabricated after the fall of the temple.

Critical scholarship supports development and transmission, not wholesale fabrication. Paul didn’t invent Christianity—but neither did the Gospel writers invent Jesus. They preserved different layers of the same early movement, serving different purposes.

Finally, one situation that critical scholarship is wrong about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

Not knowing who you are responding to is not a sign of brilliance. You don't know that about me and as a factual matter I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

Not knowing who you are responding to is not a sign of brilliance. You don't know that about me and as a factual matter I don't.

Rarely if ever does anyone know who they're talking to here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

Not knowing who you are responding to is not a sign of brilliance. You don't know that about me and as a factual matter I don't.

Not being clear of who or what you are responding to is a sign of non-brilliance.

PP didn't say anything directly about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

This responded to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

Not knowing who you are responding to is not a sign of brilliance. You don't know that about me and as a factual matter I don't.

AND this was my response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. You got a problem with that?

Yeah. What are you going to do about it?

Live and learn. I never realized atheists like to play mind games

Playing mind games with someone who thinks the gospels are based on facts is like a boxer fighting someone without any arms.

Not knowing who you are responding to is not a sign of brilliance. You don't know that about me and as a factual matter I don't.

AND this was my response.

Didn't say anything about you.

[Anonymous]

Then next time say "general truth not necessarily responding to individual above: xxx x "

Or not. Not gives you more zinger targets.
Yippee Kay Yay....