What am I if I think Jesus was the best moral teacher ever but am indifferent re his divinity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

So you're not going to bother to read alternative viewpoints. Pat yourself on the back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

Got it. The only way you're capable of refuting Dickson is to peg him as "hysterical." More insults. Jesus Christ, people, grow up and act like adults.

FWIW Dickson seemed to be taking the mature, adult role, with some humor thrown in. Lancaster seemed like the immature one, dead serious but with all his exagerrations and sweeping claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, PP! That's what I tell people about the climate change debate -- it's all so complicated talking about so many thousands of years that's it's SO HARD to know what's right!!!

That was sarcasm. The great weight of scholarly authority says he existed. If you want to disagree, go ahead, but stop acting like it's a coin flip. You're in a small minority.

+1. And we're all so sick of PP substituting insults for actual arguments and sock-puppetting herself like she did a page ago. If PP disagrees, she needs to tell us why Dickson is wrong instead of insulting him. Even a hint of an actual argument would make a good start.

PP should be careful about speaking in absolutes, because there's no way of knowing how we on this forum all feel.

Oh I think it's pretty clear that you're the only one here who thinks unoriginal insults and talking about yourself in the third person are substitutes for real discussion.

Tell us why you disagree with Dickson, or answer the questions about your own theory. Who exactly stood to benefit by "creating" Jesus (hint: your earlier answer about Romans in the AD 300s suffer d from some obvious chronological problems). Why should we ignore Mark and Paul in 55 AD (not even Lataster ignores them).

Not PP, but...

I don't think religions are started to control people. IMO they are started probably someone who wanted to tell a good story. The story sounded good to a lot of people for whatever reason (let's make Jerusalem great again!) so people continued to tell it and it caught on because people were desperate for a change (sound familiar?). Once this belief reached critical mass some people decided to insert themselves to take advantage of the power. Make up a few rules and bam, controlling people.

And I don't want to interfere with your "exchange" with PP, but you are really over-reacting to some of the comments.

It's not "overreacting" to ask for arguments instead of insults. But keep working the insults....

I'm the PP who read the Arian piece and was disappointed to find a rehash of history I already knew and zilch about the subject of our discussion--the historical evidence for or against Jesus. I'm really interested in this subject and consider myself to have an open mind. I'm also a researcher myself (in a totally different field having nothing to do with religion or history) and I press for facts for a living--so shoot me. But you guys just aren't bringing any support for your position.

Along those lines, your theory above is interesting, but do you have a shred of proof? Your theory sounds much like the mythicism that Dickson derides as being in a tiny minority, i.e., the idea that Jesus started in somebody's dreams. (BTW, for kicks you should google Lataster. He self-published his books, still hasn't received his PhD, and seems to have annoyed multiple scholars with his airy debating tactics and casual use of facts.) There is a fair amount of evidence that Jesus was real, and the vast majority of scholars appear to accept that Jesus was real. So tell us why we should accept your speculation?

I'm not trying to convince anyone - proselytizing is not a game I play. Just sharing my opinion on what might have happened. We will never really know though.

"Deriding something for being a tiny minority" just sounds like bullying. Not a real argument. His whole article had that tone. It sounded more like a personal attack than anything else.

What was the evidence jesus was real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

Got it. The only way you're capable of refuting Dickson is to peg him as "hysterical." More insults. Jesus Christ, people, grow up and act like adults.

FWIW Dickson seemed to be taking the mature, adult role, with some humor thrown in. Lancaster seemed like the immature one, dead serious but with all his exagerrations and sweeping claims.

No, it just sounded like an overly-emotional personal attack. Very unprofessional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

So you're not going to bother to read alternative viewpoints. Pat yourself on the back.

I tried, but it just sounded like some angry old dude. If you want to share something that isn't a personal attack on someone I'd be happy to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

So you're not going to bother to read alternative viewpoints. Pat yourself on the back.

I tried, but it just sounded like some angry old dude. If you want to share something that isn't a personal attack on someone I'd be happy to read it.

You keep insulting Dickson and can't be bothered to read even a short article that conflicts with your own notions. What does that say about you? There are lots of us here who wish you'd take your Bratz dolls and go bully someone else

Actually Dickson is a professor with what seems like reasonable anger at Lacaster's methods and scholarship. Just google Lancaster and you'll find lots of others criticizing his debating tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

So you're not going to bother to read alternative viewpoints. Pat yourself on the back.

I tried, but it just sounded like some angry old dude. If you want to share something that isn't a personal attack on someone I'd be happy to read it.

You keep insulting Dickson and can't be bothered to read even a short article that conflicts with your own notions. What does that say about you? There are lots of us here who wish you'd take your Bratz dolls and go bully someone else

Actually Dickson is a professor with what seems like reasonable anger at Lacaster's methods and scholarship. Just google Lancaster and you'll find lots of others criticizing his debating tactics.

If there was actually any content, I'd be happy to read it. You mentioned that there is evidence that Jesus lived. Happy to read anything you want to post on that rather than more angry personal attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.469b1a22c53b

Great article.

A Jesus birther. "Show me the birth certificate!"

Seriously, you need to read the critique before you form an opinion.

I did. Well, I tried. He was so hysterical I couldn't make it through all of the drivel.

So you're not going to bother to read alternative viewpoints. Pat yourself on the back.

I tried, but it just sounded like some angry old dude. If you want to share something that isn't a personal attack on someone I'd be happy to read it.

You keep insulting Dickson and can't be bothered to read even a short article that conflicts with your own notions. What does that say about you? There are lots of us here who wish you'd take your Bratz dolls and go bully someone else

Actually Dickson is a professor with what seems like reasonable anger at Lacaster's methods and scholarship. Just google Lancaster and you'll find lots of others criticizing his debating tactics.

If there was actually any content, I'd be happy to read it. You mentioned that there is evidence that Jesus lived. Happy to read anything you want to post on that rather than more angry personal attacks.

Dickson was funny and erudite, admit it. If he were an atheist attacking faith, you two would be rolling on the floor.

If you had read Dickson you'd know he does give specific, detailed rebuttals to Lataster concerning the historicity of Jesus. Also earlier on this thread various people made points about the gospels, Paul, and Roman sources on Jesus. You guys were unable to rebut these points with anything besides insults, just as you are still unwilling or unable to support your own personal theories.

I'm not going to repeat the points in this thread or in Dickson for you.

This is a waste of time. I'll lurk and come back if either of you has anything to offer besides speculation or insults.

[Anonymous]

I really didn't find it funny at all and have yet to hear any real evidence. No need to keep repeating the Dickson nonsense - funny how you keep referring to him even though you are so sensitive to insults. But if you come up with something new I'd be happy to read it.

And I really am not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. Makes no difference to me.

Anyway, I think religion has been an effective tool for controlling the masses - mostly for good, but also for bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nicholas Kristoff had a column about this just a day or two ago. He asked an evangelical who said "no" and the evangelical also emphasized faith over good works, at least as reported by Kristoff.

What Kristoff didn't say, but I'm sure he knows, is that other denominations are more open. Other denominations also emphasize good works over faith. Kristoff actually asked some good questions about scripture.

I wouldn't let anybody, particularly anybody on DCUM, tell you they have a lock on Christianity.

Yep. Evangelicals basically believe that as long as you buy Brand Jesus you are saved. It doesn't matter if you are an SOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nicholas Kristoff had a column about this just a day or two ago. He asked an evangelical who said "no" and the evangelical also emphasized faith over good works, at least as reported by Kristoff.

What Kristoff didn't say, but I'm sure he knows, is that other denominations are more open. Other denominations also emphasize good works over faith. Kristoff actually asked some good questions about scripture.

I wouldn't let anybody, particularly anybody on DCUM, tell you they have a lock on Christianity.

Yep. Evangelicals basically believe that as long as you buy Brand Jesus you are saved. It doesn't matter if you are an SOB.

Wow - that really explains quite a few things I've observed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really didn't find it funny at all and have yet to hear any real evidence. No need to keep repeating the Dickson nonsense - funny how you keep referring to him even though you are so sensitive to insults. But if you come up with something new I'd be happy to read it.

And I really am not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. Makes no difference to me.

Anyway, I think religion has been an effective tool for controlling the masses - mostly for good, but also for bad.

NP. You should do even a basic google and you will see that Dickson is respected and Lataster and his self-published books are not. Then you should grow a funny bone and read Dickson.

[Anonymous]

NP...I really enjoy reading these types of debates.

As your causal, non-scholarly audience...i must ask all the passionate PP's to come back out of the weeds. I believe o my 3-4 links have been shared. Way more posts have been insulting rather than truly informative. I can't keep up which PP is which and the fundamental belief or disbelief is of anyone.

Bring more substance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hey PP, you still haven't answered a single question about your own theories:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from your less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- where's proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources,
and
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then

I posted the op-ed about Kristoff and the evangelist.

I'm still waiting for answers to the questions above.

You atheists aren't exactly blowing us away with the caliber of your thought. Insulting other posters and Dickson is boring. Giving us your thoughts on what you think someone was thinking 2000 years ago is boring unless you're willing to back it up with even a modicum of logic. Insulting me and calling me "sensitive" is boring and misses the fundamental point that I don't care what you call me but I'd like to participate in an actual discussion with actual substance instead of ad hominems. Refusing to read Dickson's 1000 words is not only boring but childish. If you had read Dickson, you would not be able to deny that he has done excellent, specific, targeted rebuttals to Lataster. Clearly you two atheists have no interest in actual substance. Boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really didn't find it funny at all and have yet to hear any real evidence. No need to keep repeating the Dickson nonsense - funny how you keep referring to him even though you are so sensitive to insults. But if you come up with something new I'd be happy to read it.

And I really am not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. Makes no difference to me.

Anyway, I think religion has been an effective tool for controlling the masses - mostly for good, but also for bad.

NP. You should do even a basic google and you will see that Dickson is respected and Lataster and his self-published books are not. Then you should grow a funny bone and read Dickson.

Honestly, they both look like middling academics, at best. Dickson doesn't even have his own page on the U of Sydney website. I don't consider blogs legit sources.