(December 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Brucer Wrote: You have provided no evidence of any kind of doctored accounts.

See, this is why we kept on about the search facility. This stuff has been done to death so many times it's stopped being funny. If it ever was.

Try this for starters.

Do you not understand that the link you gave me provides no actual evidence?

There's a big difference between tangible evidence and an opinion. The first thing your link presented was a tired old impoverished persuasive argument regarding the TF, but it provided absolutely no evidence, but rather mere speculation and opinion.

That is not evidence whatsoever. Using that type of reasoning we can actually do the exact same thing to literally hundreds of paragraphs in Josephus.

"Oh it doesn't fit well within the page!"

Seriously? Although i disagree with that assessment, neither do many paragraphs from Josephus, and neither do many paragraphs from other writers.

This is not evidence whatsoever.

Um Brucer, it is quite clear (if you read the Bible) that Jesus came from the house of David by way of his mother.

He cited what he did to stymie the religious leaders.
Kind of like how religious people today trip over him.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:53 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 11:47 am)Brucer Wrote: I don't subscribe to the typical Christian "fire and brimstone" doctrine whatsoever.

Actually, that's "whateverist", but I hear you. Go on.

(December 20, 2014 at 11:47 am)Brucer Wrote: There is a difference between following the teachings of Jesus and following church doctrine. They are completely exclusive.

I like where you're going with this. I'd like to go one step further in the same direction. Why accept the church's book? Is there really any reason to think the bible is the literal, revealed word of God? Nope. Why not just follow Jesus but toss the bible?

The teachings of Jesus pre-existed the church's book. And for the most part, I only pay attention to the uttered words of Jesus, as long as they are reasonable, cohesive, and do not demonstrate some kind of improbability beyond all reason.

Quote:

(December 20, 2014 at 11:47 am)Brucer Wrote: The main reason I chose number two is because it more reflects that truth of the Jesus situation, in my opinion.

Hmmm, so no God necessary? Jesus the teacher will do? I like it. Makes a hell of a lot more sense without the hocus pocus of heaven, hell, creation and so forth.

Well no, a "God" is required, but the "God" Jesus spoke about bears very little resemblance to Jehovah.

---

(December 20, 2014 at 1:05 pm)professor Wrote: Um Brucer, it is quite clear (if you read the Bible) that Jesus came from the house of David by way of his mother.

He cited what he did to stymie the religious leaders.
Kind of like how religious people today trip over him.

Excuse my french, but the genealogy stuff is "bullshit." It's an embellishment to justify other embellishments.

Hey, can I call you Brucer_Almighty good buddy? You may actually be my favorite kind of xtian, the kind that doesn't go too far.

(December 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm)whateverist Wrote: Hey, can I call you Brucer_Almighty good buddy? You may actually be my favorite kind of xtian, the kind that doesn't go too far.

lol!

I wish I would have thought of that when I signed up.

Doesn't fit well within the page? How about "doesn't fit at all"? Unless you're willing to accept that this Jesus was another great calamity to befall the Jews, like the one Josephus goes on immediately to relate.

Then there's the fact that Josephus remained an orthodox Jew throughout his life, which makes it somewhat awkward that he would cream his pants over a Messiah.

As I said, that was just a start. There are many others here better placed to educate you.

(December 20, 2014 at 11:33 am)Brucer Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 2:18 am)Minimalist Wrote: I already know all I need to know. Just another xtian shitwit who thinks his fucking fairy tales are real.

We've seen it all before Stim.

I find this statement to be an inaccurate portrayal of my position, as I clearly stated my position in a previous post, and you either missed it, or chose to ignore it.

Nonetheless, here it is again:

Quote:Now before you get the wrong impression, I do concede that much about the man in the Gospels is an embellishment of an actual historical figure.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30305-p...#pid823721

Hopefully you will keep that in mind as this discussion continues, so that we can avoid unnecessary ad hominems in an effort to keep this discussion civilized.

I read it. I'm simply not impressed by it...or you.

Aslan or Ehrmann make the same claims. They look over the story and subtract what is inconvenient for them. It's called the Sharpshooter Fallacy, you can look that up too.

We have ONE story of your boy: The so-called gospel of mark. Everything else is derived from it by other authors who added in various claims and miracles to impress the dolts....successfully, I might add. They are FanFics in modern parlance.

So which parts of the story are you willing to sacrifice to your modern sense of "historicity." Remember that whatever you come up with - except the resurrection which was not in the original 'mark' - will not be backed up by the only evidence you claim to have.

Well Brucer, the intelligent thing then, is to throw the whole thing out.
Of what benefit to you is your position?
You join the many who concocted their own version - good luck on that one.

(December 20, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Doesn't fit well within the page? How about "doesn't fit at all"? Unless you're willing to accept that this Jesus was another great calamity to befall the Jews, like the one Josephus goes on immediately to relate.

Then there's the fact that Josephus remained an orthodox Jew throughout his life, which makes it somewhat awkward that he would cream his pants over a Messiah.

As I said, that was just a start. There are many others here better placed to educate you.

Want to know why you don't think it fits at all? Because you- and others who share your view- think the paragraph is about Jesus.

The mentioning of Jesus is only incidental to what the paragraph actually denotes.

The paragraph is a continuation of the exploits of Pontius Pilate. When reading the previous paragraphs, that becomes abundantly clear.

Many of those of you who are on the "Jesus was a Myth" bandwagon mistakenly evaluate such references from an anti-Christian perspective, and use that kind of extreme bias insomuch as not being able to see the forest due to the trees.

Instead of using anti-Christian bias, I suggest you view it from a historical perspective, and then it all makes sense.

(December 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm)professor Wrote: Well Brucer, the intelligent thing then, is to throw the whole thing out.
Of what benefit to you is your position?
You join the many who concocted their own version - good luck on that one.

Newsflash you concocted the decision to join the majority xian position .. if there even is such a thing.