(November 21, 2015 at 12:31 am)Aractus Wrote:

(November 20, 2015 at 11:43 pm)Evie Wrote: Jesus can't have ever existed because there is no son of God and there are no miracles, and without them he's not the "Jesus" written about. If there was ever evidence of any Jesus it's not the Jesus of the Bible, and therefore not actually Jesus.

Q.E.D

That's circular logic. That's like saying that John Edward doesn't exist because he doesn't really talk to spirits, and without spirits for him to talk to his character is meaningless and he's not the "John Edward" that he tells people he is.

My argument wasn't serious it was tongue-in-cheek.


The reality of my argument is actually this: If Jesus ever existed, he wasn't the Jesus of the Bible, and it's hard to determine what version of Jesus he would be.

My more thorough and serious answer was actually post #2 on this thread

(November 21, 2015 at 7:14 am)bennyboy Wrote: Whether Jesus was a real person or not, it's clear that they deliberately padded his resume with links to almost every religion known to man, including Egyptian references, Classical ones, and quite possibly Asian ones as well.

I believe that's what they call "brand synergy".

Quote:My views are shaped entire from scholarship.

Bullshit.  You cherry pick what you want to hear and anyone who doesn't tell you what you want to hear you dismiss as a quack.

That's fine.... you've chosen to remain a dumbass.  Be happy with your decision.

Show.me.the.English.literature.scholars.that.agree.that.the.authorship.of.Shakespeare's.plays.is.questionable.

You made the claim, so provide the evidence.

(November 24, 2015 at 1:08 am)Aractus Wrote: Show.me.the.English.literature.scholars.that.agree.that.the.authorship.of.Shakespeare's.plays.is.questionable.

You made the claim, so provide the evidence.

Here's a Wiki article.  Read it at your convenience and decide for yourself.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear...p_question

From wikipedia:

"Despite the scholarly consensus,[16] a relatively small[17] but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including prominent public figures,[18] have questioned the conventional attribution."

Again, please provide evidence that there isn't a consensus and that there are serious & respected English literature scholars who say the question of authorship is not certain. And not you Wyrd, Min. He's the one who comes up with claims against current scholarly opinion and then refuses to provide evidence.

I don't believe that Jesus existed. There is no evidence for his existence that I know of outside of the Bible. I know of forgeries in the writings of Josephus, but no writing about from contemporary authors. Even the Gospels were written at least a century after he was supposed to have lived.

The earlier scriptures that talk about Jesus don't talk about him as a man, but as a spiritual being. It's only the later ones that turn this spiritual being into a mortal man. There are also attempts in Matthew to equate Jesus with the prophesied Immanuel from Isaiah 7 and 8. This attempt includes the preposterous story of the Romans asking everyone to return to their place of birth to do a census (rather than just having them stay put and simply asking them 'Where were you born?'), to place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem. The actual prophecy said that Immanuel would be born into the house of Bethlehem, referring to a family, and was supposed to have come to pass within the lifetime of Isaiah, not centuries later.

The lack of reliable evidence leads me to believe that he never existed.

Poor Danny.  Is there nothing in your brain that can stand the slightest challenge?  Why are you such an insecure little shit?  Why is certainty...and an appeal to scholars who agree with you... your only answer to any issue.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/20...-examined/

Quote:Other than the plays themselves, we have precious little documentary evidence about Shakespeare. Among the meager items: a few signatures, a record of his marriage to Anne Hathaway, a strange three-page will, some papers detailing business transactions totally unrelated to writing, and just two portraits. No record of his schooling. Not one single manuscript in his own hand of even a fragment of his amazing body of work.

Someone raises a question, the establishment rallies around the status quo and you hide behind them like a scared child.  Grow up, Danny.  Or, at least try not to pretend that there is even an issue.  It makes you look foolish.

I tend to think that Jesus is a compilation of a bunch of different people. There are other Jewish figures at the time whose stories kinda mirror the Jesus myth in parts, but no contemporary mention of this particular single individual.

Paul created the Jesus character as a means to sell his religion of resurrection. The dummy thought that people could come back from the dead. It didn't work for him when he bit the dust.