The amusing bit is that you seem to think this means something, or is some sort of argument or deflection.  Here's the trouble with a slippery slope rebuttal - beyond the fact that the slope isn't all that slippery...if it were, it wouldn't matter.  The slippery slope is an argument to consequence...not an argument -against- the truth of a statement.  

But you go right ahead and prove those dirty mythicists are right about your camp.  Don't let me stop you.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The amusing bit is that you seem to think this means something, or is some sort of argument or deflection.  Here's the trouble with a slippery slope rebuttal - beyond the fact that the slope isn't all that slippery...if it were, it wouldn't matter.  The slippery slope is an argument to consequence...not an argument -against- the truth of a statement.  

But you go right ahead and prove those dirty mythicists are right about your camp.  Don't let me stop you.

I don't believe in ''tribalistic camps'' - that's a trait of religious argument/contention

-and yet you toe the line, and recite the script......like a boss! lol.

Just so we have some closure, you understand why your "no jesus, no history" argument is laughable to the point of irrelevancy, right? That this sort of statement, this sort of argumentation is -fundamentally incapable- of establishing what you wish to establish?

Quote:That Jesus, who is beardless actually based the image of Christ on pagan representations of Hermes.

You see, Mess, that is the beauty of fictional characters.  They are infinitely malleable into whatever form the imagination of the person doing the imagining.  So your boy was not some smelly jewish hippie to early xtians.  So what?  He could have been portrayed as a hairy goth or an arab.  It is completely in the mind of the artists.

Real people have an actual context to their lives.  Something that you jesus freaks clearly can't grasp.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and yet you toe the line, and recite the script......like a boss! lol.

Just so we have some closure, you understand why your "no jesus, no history" argument is laughable to the point of irrelevancy, right? That this sort of statement, this sort of argumentation is -fundamentally incapable- of establishing what you wish to establish?

It's not so much an argument as it is a standard - the argument of ''No Jesus = No History'' is absurd - which is why I did not argue such, the standard however, of ''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard'' was the point; what you did was an oversimplification.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:That Jesus, who is beardless actually based the image of Christ on pagan representations of Hermes.

You see, Mess, that is the beauty of fictional characters.  They are infinitely malleable into whatever form the imagination of the person doing the imagining.  So your boy was not some smelly jewish hippie to early xtians.  So what?  He could have been portrayed as a hairy goth or an arab.  It is completely in the mind of the artists.

Real people have an actual context to their lives.  Something that you jesus freaks clearly can't grasp.

Fictional concepts, such as the son of god are malleable; actual people however, are not. That is why Christianity took off - because the concept of a savior was appealing, the historical Jesus, not so much.

You can keep agreeing with comments which assert ''Historians get paid therefore they don't reveal the truth'' - it only pushes you further towards religious think.

P.S, why do you keep saying ''your boy''? I am not religious, nor do I entertain the idea of a god. The historicity of Jesus is accepted among Atheist scholars/historians - the barrier isn't ''Atheist vs Christian'' - it's more along the lines of ''Historian vs non-Historian''

(June 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm)TheMessiah Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Kitan Wrote: I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man.  What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

Once again we see trotted out The Great Christian Paradox

"Jesus was so fucking dangerous and had such a following that his enemies, the priests, could not wait one more day but had to hold a fucking trial on passover and thus break every rule in their own book to kill him BUT, at the same time he was so fucking insignificant that no one alive at the time took the slightest notice of him or his movement."


Yeah, Mess.  Very believable....for people who are desperate to believe.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm)TheMessiah Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and yet you toe the line, and recite the script......like a boss! lol.

Just so we have some closure, you understand why your "no jesus, no history" argument is laughable to the point of irrelevancy, right?  That this sort of statement, this sort of argumentation is -fundamentally incapable- of establishing what you wish to establish?

It's not so much an argument as it is a standard - the argument of ''No Jesus = No History'' is absurd - which is why I did not argue such, the standard however, of ''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard'' was the point; what you did was an oversimplification.

Yes, you did argue that, and it's there for anyone to see...so stop.  The contention remains..even in this post, after having distanced yourself from it in the opening sentence..... that if there is not enough evidence for jesus, then there is not enough evidence for [insert pet personage here].   Your statements to this effect could -only- establish how laughably low a given standard may be...not that there was a "historical jesus" or that there was not a "historical hannibal". So it remains-

"no jesus, no history"

Shenanigans.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

Once again we see trotted out The Great Christian Paradox

"Jesus was so fucking dangerous and had such a following that his enemies, the priests, could not wait one more day but had to hold a fucking trial on passover and thus break every rule in their own book to kill him BUT, at the same time he was so fucking insignificant that no one alive at the time took the slightest notice of him or his movement."


Yeah, Mess.  Very believable....for people who are desperate to believe.

By that logic, the vast majority of respected Atheist Historians and scholars (who accept his historicity) are not ''true Atheists'' either because they do not toe the line.

You are proving my point right; by being ideologically opposed to Christianity, you feel more compelled to dismiss any dissenting opinion as ''not a true Atheist'' --- by doing this, you are attempting to dismiss your opponent as being ideologically biased.

That is a problem that can occur with Atheism; and it happened with the now defunct Atheism Plus movement. People were accused of ''not being Atheists'' for silly reasons --- which is the exact rhetoric which Muslims use when they accuse other Muslims of being traitors.

Atheism is a non-belief in God. I do not believe in any deity; therefore I'm an Atheist. You're not ''anymore'' Atheist than I - Atheism is not an identity to take, it is literally a concept you do not believe in.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: It's not so much an argument as it is a standard - the argument of ''No Jesus = No History'' is absurd - which is why I did not argue such, the standard however, of ''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard'' was the point; what you did was an oversimplification.

Yes, you did argue that, and it's there for anyone to see...so stop.  The contention remains..even in this post, after having distanced yourself from it in the opening sentence..... that if there is not enough evidence for jesus, then there is not enough evidence for [insert pet personage here].   Your statements to this effect could -only- establish how laughably low a given standard may be...not that there was a "historical jesus" or that there was not a "historical hannibal".  So it remains-

"no jesus, no history"

Shenanigans.

That is not what I argued - I specifically pointed out to you that I was mocking your standard of what constitutes as ''evidence'' in contrast to what a scholar considers evidence. That's not an argument I'm making, it's a standard I'm pointing out - what you're doing is a gross over-simplification and strawman:

Hence my initial point still stands as:

''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard''