What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?

[Bucky Ball]

(12-07-2014 12:59 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You wrote in some other long post that some academics in the 50s did some exhaustive research on the OT and then locked it away. You described some of its conclusions as "shocking". I didn't find them shocking at all.

Why do you think they locked them away?

They weren't "locked away" dear. They were locked up, so no one would steal the fucking books. Do try to follow along. You ignored the "valuable rare book" part, as actually reading what I said wouldn't allow for your preposterous conspiracy.

Ellis is ahead of no one. Well is IS at the head of the nut-case line, and you are a close second. I have read Ellis. He's a charlatan of the first order.
H e and you are engaged in a gigantic effort at imaginary dot-connecting, and both of you would actually be flunked out or told to leave, any real academic institution.

(12-07-2014 12:59 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You plainly haven't read Ellis because if you did, you would realize that his ideas are well ahead of those in your long post on the OT.

I have. He's nuts. One of the advantages of having a REAL education, is that one can dismiss the bullshit. You are dismissed.

[cjlr]

(12-07-2014 01:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 12:59 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You wrote in some other long post that some academics in the 50s did some exhaustive research on the OT and then locked it away. You described some of its conclusions as "shocking". I didn't find them shocking at all.

Why do you think they locked them away?

They weren't "locked away" dear. They were locked up, so no one would steal the fucking books. Do try to follow along.

Ellis is ahead of no one. Well is IS at the head of the nut-case line, and you are a close second. I have read Ellis. He's a charlatan of the first order.

(12-07-2014 12:59 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You plainly haven't read Ellis because if you did, you would realize that his ideas are well ahead of those in your long post on the OT.

I have. He's nuts. One of the advantages of having a REAL education, is that one can dismiss the bullshit. You are dismissed.

Clearly you're missing the bigger picture here, Bucky.

Ellis is self-evidently correct, because he's railing against THE MAN, which as we all know means the vast Reptiloid shadow conspiracy running the planet. Therefore, even if there are no other reasons to take him seriously (and there aren't), being able to make self-important ignoramuses feel special means it's obviously all true and any objections are just part of the conspiracy.

Seems legit.

[Bucky Ball]

(12-07-2014 01:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They weren't "locked away" dear. They were locked up, so no one would steal the fucking books. Do try to follow along.

Ellis is ahead of no one. Well is IS at the head of the nut-case line, and you are a close second. I have read Ellis. He's a charlatan of the first order.


I have. He's nuts. One of the advantages of having a REAL education, is that one can dismiss the bullshit. You are dismissed.

Clearly you're missing the bigger picture here, Bucky.

Ellis is self-evidently correct, because he's railing against THE MAN, which as we all know means the vast Reptiloid shadow conspiracy running the planet. Therefore, even if there are no other reasons to take him seriously (and there aren't), being able to make self-important ignoramuses feel special means it's obviously all true and any objections are just part of the conspiracy.

Seems legit.

I'm so sorry. I forgot that the word "man" appears in both the NT, Harry Potter, and The Cat in The Hat. I have concluded therefore, they were all written by the same author, and Jesus and the Cat really are the same, and the NT is really about feline appreciation. That's it. I think I've got it.

[Deltabravo]

I really can't be bothered.

Good luck with your dissertation. Hey, just think. As you sit there, in a quiet moment, what is going to come into your mind?....Ralph Ellis....ROFL.

You are obviously THE MAN around here judging by how many people you need to prop you up when you spew your bile.

[Bucky Ball]

(12-07-2014 01:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I really can't be bothered.

Good luck with your dissertation. Hey, just think. As you sit there, in a quiet moment, what is going to come into your mind?....Ralph Ellis....ROFL.

You are obviously THE MAN around here judging by how many people you need to prop you up when you spew your bile.

Waaa waaa waaa. Sour grapes much. Poor baby. These are intelligent people. If they think anythng of me, I EARNED it. Ellis will NEVER enter my mind, EVER, except if I need an example of an ignorant charlatan who could have had a brilliant career, but chose not to accept the methods of the field he wanted to work in. (Kind of like a quack doctor not wanting to go to a real medical school). You lecture me about "honesty" when you said you were leaving. Yet here you are, sucking Ellis' dick. Like a bad penny.

[Deltabravo]

(12-07-2014 01:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I really can't be bothered.

Good luck with your dissertation. Hey, just think. As you sit there, in a quiet moment, what is going to come into your mind?....Ralph Ellis....ROFL.

You are obviously THE MAN around here judging by how many people you need to prop you up when you spew your bile.

Waaa waaa waaa. Sour grapes much. Poor baby. These are intelligent people. If they think anythng of me, I EARNED it. Ellis will NEVER enter my mind, EVER, except if I need an example of an ignorant charlatan who could have had a brilliant career, but chose not to accept the methods of the field he wanted to work in. (Kind of like a quack doctor not wanting to go to a real medical school). You lecture me about "honesty" when you said you were leaving. Yet here you are, sucking Ellis' dick. Like a bad penny.

Jebus, what a foul mouth you have. If that is the intake standard at H U these days then Gawd help us.

By the way Bucky it's "eschatology". You have confused that with "scatology". I would check which department you are in because you were plainly accepted into it based on your repertoire of references to "end products" rather than "end times".

[Bucky Ball]

(12-07-2014 02:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Waaa waaa waaa. Sour grapes much. Poor baby. These are intelligent people. If they think anythng of me, I EARNED it. Ellis will NEVER enter my mind, EVER, except if I need an example of an ignorant charlatan who could have had a brilliant career, but chose not to accept the methods of the field he wanted to work in. (Kind of like a quack doctor not wanting to go to a real medical school). You lecture me about "honesty" when you said you were leaving. Yet here you are, sucking Ellis' dick. Like a bad penny.

Jebus, what a foul mouth you have. If that is the intake standard at H U these days then Gawd help us.

By the way Bucky it's "eschatology". You have confused that with "scatology". I would check which department you are in because you were plainly accepted into it based on your repertoire of references to "end products" rather than "end times".

Well aren't we just all clever and shitty today.
You have been whining about swearing for months now. Get over it Church lady.
Nice try at deflecting from the REAL arguments at hand.
Go suck on Ellis' dick, and be happy.
No one asked if I swore during the entrance process, idiot. I actually never swear IRL.
I swear on the internet for emphasis, when idiotic notions such as your imaginary dot connecting happen. Saves hurting myself with face-palms.

[Chas]

(12-07-2014 12:59 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 12:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ya think ?

You wrote in some other long post that some academics in the 50s did some exhaustive research on the OT and then locked it away. You described some of its conclusions as "shocking". I didn't find them shocking at all.

Why do you think they locked them away?

Is it because, when people put forward an idea which is new, they are abused by people like you who can only muster a "ya think" to a question and at worst engage in venomous hysterical attacks on people..."don't patronize me!!"

Have you read Atwill? Dawkins read his book? Does that qualify him as a nutcase in your books?

You plainly haven't read Ellis because if you did, you would realize that his ideas are well ahead of those in your long post on the OT. Or maybe you think that those who come up with ideas which are not supported by existing "peer reviewed" papers, ie., are outside the "mainstream" should lock their ideas away in a closet rather than deal with the intellectual arrogance and dishonesty of those who purport to be "thinking" but, instead, are closing their eyes, ears, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalalalala, I can't her you". As you do.

Not reading something and purporting to 1) know what it says and 2) know it is wrong is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and if you find that patronizing, it is. I find engaging with you and some of the others on this forum with your attitude to be like talking to a corpse.

I have read some Ralph Ellis.

Like this.

And these.

And critiques.

and more.


But do carry on.

[Briggs]

I think there were guys back then preaching different views of life/religions. The story of Jesus may be a bunch of those combined with "miracles" added to the equation. IMO it's very possible a "messiah" as some claimed to be was killed, but I obviously don't think they were messiahs.

[Jagare]

(26-04-2014 01:15 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I would like to post a poll with the following options about what is the most likely explanation of who Jesus was?

The most interesting theory I ever heard on the actual truth of Jesus was that he was a homosexual traveling with a group of fellow homosexual con men.

As far fetched as it may seem it has at least some plausibility. After all, you're talking about a time and place that wasn't exactly friendly towards gay people (at least outside of Rome), and the idea of being a god-chosen messiah was actually sort of popular. It was conjectured that any one of the 13 men could've easily taken on the role of 'Jesus Christ' in order to swindle any given community out of food and lodging. Being that it may have been difficult for them to acquire gainful employment, it would've been easier to practice evangelism for a religion that didn't yet really exist rather than attempt trying to sell an existing religion that a community had already discarded. Meanwhile, it would've been easier to get work as a fishermen thanks to the risky nature of sailing the Mediterranean and its well known that the "apostles" spent a lot of time on boats.

Regardless, it's a fun theory. Whether or not there's any truth to it is inconsequential to me. I just think it has more merit than some earth-bound godboy walking on water and floating into the clouds after raising from the dead.