Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 03:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 12:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 10:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But when it comes to Nazareth... this one is definitely how they portrayed it, eh? They really thought it was important to portray the perfect historical record, in this one instance? They couldn't have had another (more likely) motive to assign characteristics to their Jesus the Annointed One which made the Christ into the prophesied Messiah, which his followers had thought he was during his lifetime, by tacking on extra "evidence"?

But you can do the exact same thing for any town listed in the Gospels. So why single out Nazareth? The Gospels depict Jesus performing miracles all over the god damn place in numerous towns, so does that mean that those town's existence also need to be questioned?

Yet, here he supposedly comes from Nazareth, a town the depicts him as being unable to perform miracles due to their lack of belief, and you make a big deal over this town as opposed to others?

This argument isn't even about history, in case you haven't noticed. This argument is all about the attempt to destroy anything to do with Christianity. Christians say Jesus came from Nazareth, and those who stand against Christianity are trying to destroy the supposed origins of Jesus of Nazareth.

It has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. it's an argument against religion, and that's why history is so disregarded.

Quote:Holy crap! How do we ever find anything!?

But yes, that's why one of the primary archaeologists who has worked on the subject of Nazareth is a Catholic.

They are finding plenty of stuff; more than enough to determine the existence of Nazareth before, during, and after the 1st century.

Quote:And that will be cool. And that will be evidence. However, I don't think it will happen, and I think the evidence is sparse but clear enough to me, at this point, to show that the Luke passages are mythology rather than history.

If the Luke passages were 100% mythology, we would not have so many actual historical persons listed, as well as historical places and things. This alone tells us that not everything Luke wrote about is myth.

The reality of the Gospels is that if you decide to look at them from a purely mythical point of view, then you are going to see what you want to see.

But me and other historians see something else. We see a history of the early beliefs and religious origins of Christians in all it's glory. It's not even a matter of whether or not the events in the Gospel occurred, but rather quite simply a matter of the history of the Christian belief system.

So instead of choosing to view it from a wholly mythical perspective, we see it for what it is; a belief system that merely embellishes the life of a historical person with some tall tales regarding his actions in an around 1st century Judea, including Nazareth.

Quote:All true. But we have no reason to suspect your "horde", and there is no positive indication that they were sent there in the year 70, as opposed to the later revolt, let alone that there were large numbers of them. The Hapizzez (18th Course) line was not a wealthy/famous one like the 17th Course was, the Hezir line, for instance, where we could expect larger numbers.

It could be a horde, which merely means a crowd, but we just don't know. Yes, there's no positive confirmation the year was CE 70.

Quote:Why? Your version does not encompass my argument. Assigning this town, in writing, to be Jesus' hometown during the years in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, when Matthew and Luke were written, would have indeed happened in the years it was growing, following the upheavals of the revolt. We have no doubt the Jesus-legend was growing rapidly during the years prior to the writing of the Gospels, and we see the tale grow taller, the later the year of authorship of the Gospel (to the point that John doesn't even mesh completely with the theme of the first three, prompting the term "synoptic" for the non-John Gospels).

Let me show you my contention. Here's my quote with you responding to it.

Quote:Neato! What does that have to do with pre-diaspora villages where Nazareth would one day be?

This implies that the town named "Nazareth" did not exist before the war of CE 70. Your argument here is that you believe that when Justin mentioned Nazareth in CE 140, he was referring to Nazareth post-dispora.

The implication here is that you are saying that the town of Nazareth was not named Nazareth before CE 70, and instead are referring to it as a collection of small unnamed villages.

Now the problem I am having here is that the priestly courses name the town as being Nazareth BEFORE they went there in CE 70, a strong indication of a town named Nazareth pre-existing CE 70, and therefore by necessity pre-existing the accepted dating of the Gospel records.

How do you reconcile this with your position?

So why single out Nazareth? The Gospels depict Jesus performing miracles all over the god damn place in numerous towns, so does that mean that those town's existence also need to be questioned?

Yes. As far as I'm aware all the other places mentioned in the gospels we have historical evidence for. All except for Nazareth in the first century... which has zilch.

"We see a history of the early beliefs and religious origins of Christians in all it's glory. It's not even a matter of whether or not the events in the Gospel occurred, but rather quite simply a matter of the history of the Christian belief system."

OOPS! You let that one slip out, didn't you!

So much for your historical objectivity!

Who are "we"? That wouldn't be your fellow believers in pews by any chance, would
it?

Please tell us all about the "glory" of Christian history. What is so special about a pro Roman rewrite of history? When I read the gospels I find them pathetic and childish. Their anti-Jewish pro-Roman bias jumps out at you from nearly every page. The so called philosophy contained therein is weak, poorly expressed, and much of it is downright dangerous for mental health if ardently believed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 12:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Israeli archaeologist can't be trusted....
Suggest that we shouldn't trust Jews, and people's panties get tied up in a knot, and your accused of anti-semitism. For fucks sake.

Tomasia Wrote:And I never said Rocketsurgeon said anything about their Jewishness
Emphasis = mine

First:
There is a difference between being a Jew and being an Israeli. Having an academic degree relevant to the topic you should have known this.
You are accusing RS76 of antisemitism but ironically are conflating yourself the two terms, just like antisemites do.

Second:
How do you reconcile your two statements?

If and before you care to reply, consider this:

Tomasia Wrote:You don't win arguments here, you just find ways to weasel out of losing an argument. People desire more to save face, and not concede that they were wrong, than they desire what is true.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 03:04 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the son of God...that was blasphemy.

The Nazarene knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth. in fact their views paralleled the views of christianity, with their only real difference being in regards to the Jewish law.

"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2"

Quote:The Nazarenes upheld the Jewish law ...to them there was no such thing as a "new covenant" that replaced their ancient traditions.

The writer of Mark doesn't replace the Jewish law either.

Quote:The Nazarenes hated Paul's guts, to them he was a heretic.

More a part of your imagination than fact. Judging that the contention between Paul and some of the early jewish followers of Jesus, is documented by Paul only, that this contention revolved around one issue only, whether Gentiles need to follow the jewish ritual laws. Paul while disagreeing with the others here, hardly paints it as amounting to "hating each others guts".

Quote:Mark adopted Paul's ideas.

No, there's nothing in Mark that indicates he adopted Paul's idea. Mark's Jesus is the least miraculous and divine of the bunch, doesn't do away with Jewish laws, or anything of the sort. Doesn't draw connections between Jesus and Adam, etc....
.

Quote:The Nazarenes did not think Jesus died to save people from their sins, they knew he was executed by the Romans.

The Nazarene's knew Jesus' death was a Roman execution. Marks Gospel made out Jews were responsible for his death.

Mark also indicated that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If your claim that the Nazarenes's didn't believe that this was partly instigated by the Jews, I'm calling bullshit, that you made that up. If you want to prove me wrong, site the actual early sources, that support this.

Quote:The Nazarenes were zealots... they were willing to fight against the Romans. Mark's gospel has Jesus saying "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek," "blessed are the meek" and "pay your taxes." No Nazarene would ever say such things.

False, for variety of reasons, primarily because Mark's Gospel doesn't have Jesus saying "love you enemies" or "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek". Nor does Jesus say "pay your taxes" in any of the gospels. Though I'll give you a pass on the last one, which you likely meant the passage about "rendering unto Caesar". Which was a response to the Pharisees trying to trap him, into saying yes or no, instead he gives them a non-answer.

The Nazarenes on the other hand did have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, and this Gospel unlike Mark has all the turn the other cheek, love you enemies bits,.

Quote:The Nazarenes were against paying Roman tax, Mark's Gospel has Jesus eating with tax collectors.

He also ate with sinners, and prostitutes. Doesn't mean he wasn't against what they were doing. The fact that Mark categorizes sinners and tax collectors together, doesn't paint them in the best of light.

Quote:The Nazarenes believed the kingdom of God was to be in Israel in the here and now, Mark's Gospel had the kingdom of God in heaven.

Yet Luke's Gospels indicates that the Kingdom of God is among you. Mark's placement is ambiguous.

I would like to know where you derived that the Nazarene held a view similar to Luke here. What early source your derived that view from.

Quote:In the few centuries after Jesus's death, the Nazarenes were suppressed and persecuted by Christians. The holy Roman Catholic Church, strongly aligned with the Roman government, produced the definitive versions of Mark's Gospel, a Gospel that totally undermined the true history, beliefs and traditions of a proud Nazarene sect. History was written by the winners.

Yes, and they supposedly spoke to you from the dead, telling you all about the wild beliefs you ascribe to them, that remain entirely unsupported by the sources we do have regarding their views. Sources which negate the very claims you suggested here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:55 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 12:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Israeli archaeologist can't be trusted....
Suggest that we shouldn't trust Jews, and people's panties get tied up in a knot, and your accused of anti-semitism. For fucks sake.

Tomasia Wrote:And I never said Rocketsurgeon said anything about their Jewishness
Emphasis = mine

First:
There is a difference between being a Jew and being an Israeli. Having an academic degree relevant to the topic you should have known this.
You are accusing RS76 of antisemitism but ironically are conflating yourself the two terms, just like antisemites do.

Second:
How do you reconcile your two statements?

(I) Suggest(ed) that we shouldn't trust Jews, and people's (Rocketsurgen and others) panties get tied up in a knot, and you're (I'm) accused of anti-semitism. For fucks sake.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes. As far as I'm aware all the other places mentioned in the gospels we have historical evidence for. All except for Nazareth in the first century... which has zilch

There's a variety of evidence which has been pointed out to you, and RS. It's just that according to you guys, that evidence can't be trusted, because of a conspiracy by the Israeli government to cover up the non-existence of Nazareth, by fudging archaeological research to support its existence at the time, in order to protect their tourism industry.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 12:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But you can do the exact same thing for any town listed in the Gospels. So why single out Nazareth? The Gospels depict Jesus performing miracles all over the god damn place in numerous towns, so does that mean that those town's existence also need to be questioned?

Yet, here he supposedly comes from Nazareth, a town the depicts him as being unable to perform miracles due to their lack of belief, and you make a big deal over this town as opposed to others?

This argument isn't even about history, in case you haven't noticed. This argument is all about the attempt to destroy anything to do with Christianity. Christians say Jesus came from Nazareth, and those who stand against Christianity are trying to destroy the supposed origins of Jesus of Nazareth.

It has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. it's an argument against religion, and that's why history is so disregarded.


They are finding plenty of stuff; more than enough to determine the existence of Nazareth before, during, and after the 1st century.


If the Luke passages were 100% mythology, we would not have so many actual historical persons listed, as well as historical places and things. This alone tells us that not everything Luke wrote about is myth.

The reality of the Gospels is that if you decide to look at them from a purely mythical point of view, then you are going to see what you want to see.

But me and other historians see something else. We see a history of the early beliefs and religious origins of Christians in all it's glory. It's not even a matter of whether or not the events in the Gospel occurred, but rather quite simply a matter of the history of the Christian belief system.

So instead of choosing to view it from a wholly mythical perspective, we see it for what it is; a belief system that merely embellishes the life of a historical person with some tall tales regarding his actions in an around 1st century Judea, including Nazareth.


It could be a horde, which merely means a crowd, but we just don't know. Yes, there's no positive confirmation the year was CE 70.


Let me show you my contention. Here's my quote with you responding to it.


This implies that the town named "Nazareth" did not exist before the war of CE 70. Your argument here is that you believe that when Justin mentioned Nazareth in CE 140, he was referring to Nazareth post-dispora.

The implication here is that you are saying that the town of Nazareth was not named Nazareth before CE 70, and instead are referring to it as a collection of small unnamed villages.

Now the problem I am having here is that the priestly courses name the town as being Nazareth BEFORE they went there in CE 70, a strong indication of a town named Nazareth pre-existing CE 70, and therefore by necessity pre-existing the accepted dating of the Gospel records.

How do you reconcile this with your position?

This argument is all about the attempt to destroy anything to do with Christianity. Christians say Jesus came from Nazareth, and those who stand against Christianity are trying to destroy the supposed origins of Jesus of Nazareth. It has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. it's an argument against religion, and that's why history is so disregarded.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

The truth may never be known, however, the best approximation of the truth certainly appears to rest with a consensus of experts, whom all claim that the evidence clearly shows that Nazareth even before the 1st century.

Why do you not respect their professional opinions?

Quote:It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity.

I have no paranoia about anything. My position and experience dictates that I trust a consensus of experts just like we would trust a consensus in any other field. This does not mean that the consensus cannot be wrong, but only that as a collective their agreements cannot be dismissed with mere assertion, unlike the most of the arguments used against the consensus.

Quote: I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

On the contrary, I have no religion. I am not a Christian, never was.

Quote:It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.

No, what causes me to be so aggressive really is the stupid arguments you and other post. I realize YOU think you have a point, but you do not have a point when you have no actual tangible evidence to support your claims.

Arguing that you have a point when you have no evidence to ground it on amounts to nothing but a house of cards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Rocketsurgeon has claimed there is no evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century. Yet he himself states he believe that it did exist at the time. I'm still waiting on him to work that out for me.

No, I have not. You have said that I have, repeatedly, and I have repeatedly told you that you are lying about my position. I've even had massive amounts of conversation on the subject of why I think it likely emerged as a settlement during the years of the diaspora. What I am saying should not be difficult for honest people to grasp; the only explanation for your repeated mis-statement of my position is that you are deliberately lying to create a strawman you can beat upon and crow about how I'm not reconciling my actual position with a false position you created.

(26-07-2016 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Rocketsurgeon in my views lacks a particularly coherent view here, and shuffles between defending the views of others that he doesn't hold personally, as respectable positions, and some set of poorly formed views of his own.

I would imagine it's not coherent, since you're hallucinating about half of it. Let go of your hatred, Asshole.

(26-07-2016 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  He accused the journalist of sensationalizing the findings of IAA, but when it was pointed out to him, that this was supported by the director of IAA dig himself, he suggested IAA was likely fibbing about their own findings, since they're funded by the Israeli government, for the sake of encouraging tourism.

And I pointed out to you, from my own experiences, why I think this is likely the case. I also pointed out to you that the findings do not actually demonstrate it was there before the textual evidence, and only show a range of dates that may include the time Jesus would have been growing up there, if we give it the maximum possible leeway on the range of dates for no good reason.

(26-07-2016 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  He appears here mostly serving as some sort of proxy for Mark Fulton's view, but when placed into a corner, confesses to not actually sharing Mark's view. He seems more interested in defending the views of others that he personally doesn't hold himself, than actually defending the views he personally holds.

You think you placed me in a corner? Laugh out load

You misrepresented my position completely at almost every turn. I agree with many of Mark's conclusions, but not all. You obviously refuse to understand what my positions actually are, and prefer instead to make up versions about which you can make snarky comments at the atheists you hate so much.

I hypothesize that this is because you are an asshole, Asshole.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-07-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 03:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:55 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Emphasis = mine

First:
There is a difference between being a Jew and being an Israeli. Having an academic degree relevant to the topic you should have known this.
You are accusing RS76 of antisemitism but ironically are conflating yourself the two terms, just like antisemites do.

Second:
How do you reconcile your two statements?

(I) Suggest(ed) that we shouldn't trust Jews, and people's (Rocketsurgen and others) panties get tied up in a knot, and you're (I'm) accused of anti-semitism. For fucks sake.
Thanks for the clarification

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the son of God...that was blasphemy.

The Nazarene knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth. in fact their views paralleled the views of christianity, with their only real difference being in regards to the Jewish law.

"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2"

Quote:The Nazarenes upheld the Jewish law ...to them there was no such thing as a "new covenant" that replaced their ancient traditions.

The writer of Mark doesn't replace the Jewish law either.

Quote:The Nazarenes hated Paul's guts, to them he was a heretic.

More a part of your imagination than fact. Judging that the contention between Paul and some of the early jewish followers of Jesus, is documented by Paul only, that this contention revolved around one issue only, whether Gentiles need to follow the jewish ritual laws. Paul while disagreeing with the others here, hardly paints it as amounting to "hating each others guts".

Quote:Mark adopted Paul's ideas.

No, there's nothing in Mark that indicates he adopted Paul's idea. Mark's Jesus is the least miraculous and divine of the bunch, doesn't do away with Jewish laws, or anything of the sort. Doesn't draw connections between Jesus and Adam, etc....
.

Quote:The Nazarenes did not think Jesus died to save people from their sins, they knew he was executed by the Romans.

The Nazarene's knew Jesus' death was a Roman execution. Marks Gospel made out Jews were responsible for his death.

Mark also indicated that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If your claim that the Nazarenes's didn't believe that this was partly instigated by the Jews, I'm calling bullshit, that you made that up. If you want to prove me wrong, site the actual early sources, that support this.

Quote:The Nazarenes were zealots... they were willing to fight against the Romans. Mark's gospel has Jesus saying "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek," "blessed are the meek" and "pay your taxes." No Nazarene would ever say such things.

False, for variety of reasons, primarily because Mark's Gospel doesn't have Jesus saying "love you enemies" or "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek". Nor does Jesus say "pay your taxes" in any of the gospels. Though I'll give you a pass on the last one, which you likely meant the passage about "rendering unto Caesar". Which was a response to the Pharisees trying to trap him, into saying yes or no, instead he gives them a non-answer.

The Nazarenes on the other hand did have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, and this Gospel unlike Mark has all the turn the other cheek, love you enemies bits,.

Quote:The Nazarenes were against paying Roman tax, Mark's Gospel has Jesus eating with tax collectors.

He also ate with sinners, and prostitutes. Doesn't mean he wasn't against what they were doing. The fact that Mark categorizes sinners and tax collectors together, doesn't paint them in the best of light.

Quote:The Nazarenes believed the kingdom of God was to be in Israel in the here and now, Mark's Gospel had the kingdom of God in heaven.

Yet Luke's Gospels indicates that the Kingdom of God is among you. Mark's placement is ambiguous.

I would like to know where you derived that the Nazarene held a view similar to Luke here. What early source your derived that view from.

Quote:In the few centuries after Jesus's death, the Nazarenes were suppressed and persecuted by Christians. The holy Roman Catholic Church, strongly aligned with the Roman government, produced the definitive versions of Mark's Gospel, a Gospel that totally undermined the true history, beliefs and traditions of a proud Nazarene sect. History was written by the winners.


Yes, and they supposedly spoke to you from the dead, telling you all about the wild beliefs you ascribe to them, that remain entirely unsupported by the sources we do have regarding their views. Sources which negate the very claims you suggested here.

"False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth."

The church fathers said literally thousands of outlandish things. They cannot be relied upon. There are many quotes from the church fathers which say the very opposite.

We do not have any writings from the Nazarenes except maybe perhaps the book of James in the new Testament and maybe perhaps some of James' writings in the dead sea scrolls. Neither mention the amazing fact that his brother was allegedly the son of God who rose from the dead.

Pause and think. Can you give me one possible reason why the Nazarenes, the very family and followers of Jesus, would think he had risen from the dead? Please do not write what you might be tempted to write. We're both rational men having a sensible discussion about history, so please do not turn it into a farce.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 03:15 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This argument is all about the attempt to destroy anything to do with Christianity. Christians say Jesus came from Nazareth, and those who stand against Christianity are trying to destroy the supposed origins of Jesus of Nazareth. It has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. it's an argument against religion, and that's why history is so disregarded.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

The truth may never be known, however, the best approximation of the truth certainly appears to rest with a consensus of experts, whom all claim that the evidence clearly shows that Nazareth even before the 1st century.

Why do you not respect their professional opinions?

Quote:It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity.

I have no paranoia about anything. My position and experience dictates that I trust a consensus of experts just like we would trust a consensus in any other field. This does not mean that the consensus cannot be wrong, but only that as a collective their agreements cannot be dismissed with mere assertion, unlike the most of the arguments used against the consensus.

Quote: I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

On the contrary, I have no religion. I am not a Christian, never was.

Quote:It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.

No, what causes me to be so aggressive really is the stupid arguments you and other post. I realize YOU think you have a point, but you do not have a point when you have no actual tangible evidence to support your claims.

Arguing that you have a point when you have no evidence to ground it on amounts to nothing but a house of cards.

"however, the best approximation of the truth certainly appears to rest with a consensus of experts, whom all claim that the evidence clearly shows that Nazareth even before the 1st century."

So you keep saying, ad nauseum. Please stop it. The majority of people here don't buy this. You have been asked to prove it, many times, but you just repeat it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: