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?

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.

However, there is no scholarly evidence that Jesus is the son of god. That is beyond the scope of scholars and into the realm of faith. Scholars are limited to studying about people believing that Jesus was the son of god and how that belief grew through the ages It is a fact that belief in Jesus as the son of god has grown over the centuries, sometimes through missionary work and sometimes via war and subjugation (as is the case with Islam, as well). That growth is declining lately, but only because more people have greater access to information through the internet. For people of strong faith, factual information has little or no impact. They may doubt for a while, but their faith will always return, often stronger than it was before.

Anonymous wrote:Am I a Christian? I like reading the Bible to understand Jesus's teachings and try to follow them.

If you believe in the G-d of the Bible but not the divinity of Jesus, you may be a Unitarian. Trinitarians (Catholic and Protestant denominations) believe in the G-d of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Unitarians have been around from the beginning of the Church. They were formally ostracized and declared heretics at the first Council of Nicaea in 325. They popped up and were killed from time to time. Once the Protestant reformation was started, they have been around to stay. There are Unitarian pulpits in Transylvania that are nearly 450 years old.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

Why do so many atheists, who claim to put so much stock in rationality, resort to grade-school insults to make their points? Do you guys realize that everybody tunes you out as childish bullies with nothing substantive to say?

I'm super sick of atheists like the righteous PP in this thread. They pick out religion for special scorn with an irrational vengeance -- religion is one kind of ideology. Communism, socialism, fascism, secular humanism -- these are also ideologies. We are all human -- criticizing religion as "man-made" like that's some devastating critique is ridiculous. All ideologies are articulated to an extent by man, even if they reflect non super-natural "truths" like Marxism's materialistic interpretation of history. For the record, I'm the OP that believes Jesus existed and loves his teachings. I do not believe in God -- nor I do believe there is NOT a God -- I'm just indifferent and try to follow Jesus's teaching. If others think him divine, I respect that and their belief in God. I guess that makes me an atheist, but I am wholly opposed to the reductive, anti-religion atheism of the PP.

PP, we know there are plenty of thoughtful atheists like you out there, and who aren't threatened by somebody else's beliefs. Live and let live.

It would be wonderful if there were more religious believers who were not threatened by the very existence of atheists --picking out atheism for special scorn with an irrational vengeance. thinking that atheists are immoral simply because they do not believe in any of the gods of various religions and that human life ends just the way other animals' lives end -- forever.

PS - saying religions is "man-made" is not a criticism -- it's a fact.

Question: Is it a grade school insult to state, without evidence that "everybody tunes you out as childish bullies with nothing substantive to say?"

It sure is nice that not all religious people are like this.

That's it? The one lame attempt to source the claims above--that Jesus never existed and was invented by some unidentified hegemonist--went down in flames. So there's nothing there. No scholarly support, nothing.

How quickly you give up and return to insulting people.

This, my friend, is why everybody tunes you out. To answer your question, it's not an insult, it's a fact. Bonus points for playing the atheist victim card even as you continue to insult people. I wish you could appreciate the irony.

pp above is definitely not tuning out the atheist. pp can't resist engaging. Makes you wonder about the firmness of pp's faith.

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

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.

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

Thanks for the link to Raphael Lataster's piece. Here's Lataster's former professor, John Dickson, talking about how he'd give Lataster an F for that piece because of his "numerous misrepresentations of scholarship":

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm

For those of you who are interested, Lataster espouses "mythicism," the theory that "Jesus started out as a purely celestial figure revealed in dreams and visions to prophetic figures like the apostle Paul and only later written into history-sounding texts like the Gospels."

As Dickson writes, " 'Mythicists' are the historical equivalent of the anti-vaccination crowd in medical science.... But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe." Dickson uses lots of other fun phrases, like "indefensible exagerration" and "eccentric" and "grandiose" to describe the article at PP's link. Both Lataster's Purcell and Dickson's follow-up are worth a read.

I bet Lataser would give Dickson an F for his remarks.

It all happened so long ago, with so little evidence and so much storytelling surrounding it that it's hard to tell what's fact and what's fiction. But God, being all-powerful, must have wanted it that way.

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

Thanks for the link to Raphael Lataster's piece. Here's Lataster's former professor, John Dickson, talking about how he'd give Lataster an F for that piece because of his "numerous misrepresentations of scholarship":

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm

For those of you who are interested, Lataster espouses "mythicism," the theory that "Jesus started out as a purely celestial figure revealed in dreams and visions to prophetic figures like the apostle Paul and only later written into history-sounding texts like the Gospels."

As Dickson writes, " 'Mythicists' are the historical equivalent of the anti-vaccination crowd in medical science.... But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe." Dickson uses lots of other fun phrases, like "indefensible exagerration" and "eccentric" and "grandiose" to describe the article at PP's link. Both Lataster's Purcell and Dickson's follow-up are worth a read.