Anyhow, you're talking to us lot, not this group of super-gnostic fanatically jesus-denying uber atheist strawmen you keep referring to who may or may not exist.

We don't care if there was a historical jesus. It's irrelevant. (If anyone does feel differently, feel free to say so and I apologize for misrepresenting you.)

(July 11, 2015 at 11:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Is there a single atheist on this forum who feels it is really important to them to deny the possibility Jesus was a historical figure, further than simply debating it as an interesting point?

I have no problem accepting the existence of a group of unemployed louses roaming the countryside exchanging bullshit for room and board. It was probably as harmless as the fucking circus until the opportunist Paul came along to create the first century version of Scientology. Things were still okay for over two hundred years until that cunt Constantine saw a sun dog, got spooked and painted chi-rho on his shields and standards.

The Jesus in the NT, as described by his supposed deeds, most assuredly didn't exist. This is the Jesus Christians are always going on about, not the freeloading gang leader.

(July 11, 2015 at 11:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I've never heard one atheist ever who actually cares. Where are you getting this data from?

rob-

I've gone back and read your interaction with Tim O'Neill in this forum.

I know you know there are Jesus Mythers out there.

Mythicism is intellectually lazy.

(July 11, 2015 at 11:44 am)pocaracas Wrote: Randy,

bart Wrote:He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic

As in "he may have been the teacher of righteousness".
What things can bart tell us about Jesus that we can't tell about the teacher?

Ask him. I'd be willing to bet his email is available at the UNC website.

Wow.

Jesus mythers are those that believe Jesus was most likely a myth. So what? You're saying it's really important to them, and that they use it to not have to think about how Jesus could have been magic. How do you support this accusation? Or are you just projecting onto them?

Cato: Of course, the NT character is almost entirely a mythical construction. That is very different to whether there happened to be some numpty at the time who the story was based around, which is what "historical Jesus" is. People like Bart and Tim who Randy keeps referring to argue for the numpty, not the whole story guy.

Why would we are about a numpty? And I'd doubt you'd find even one mythicist anywhere who would totally deny the possibility of a HJ, or that it's "really important to them".

This is more strawmanning.

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck if the entire NT was true apart from the magic parts. Again, it's irrelevant.

EDIT: Ahah, correction. I wouldn't even care if the magic parts were true, insofar as it's at all possible for them to be true.

(July 11, 2015 at 11:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Is there a single atheist on this forum who feels it is really important to them to deny the possibility Jesus was a historical figure, further than simply debating it as an interesting point?

Is there one anywhere?

"You atheists" is a strong accusation so I want names, figures, dates, figs, almonds, apples, bananas and all the irrelevant documentation.

Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, Acharya S, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, Frank Zindler, Thomas L. Thompson, Tom Harpur, George A. Wells...

Oh, wait...you said "on this forum".

Red Beard, Tonechaser, Iatia, Minimalist...should I start making a list of forum Mythers?

Please show me where they said it was "really important to them" to deny a HJ, and that they need to believe it so that they don't have to think about magic Jesus being real?

One last chance to provide evidence or retract the statement or I'm gonna give up on you, your strawmanning and dishonesty entirely.

Or let those on this forum speak for themselves. I wonder if they will agree with your assessment of them?

(July 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: Anyhow, you're talking to us lot, not this group of super-gnostic fanatically jesus-denying uber atheist strawmen you keep referring to who may or may not exist.

We don't care if there was a historical jesus. It's irrelevant. (If anyone does feel differently, feel free to say so and I apologize for misrepresenting you.)

Now, I'm talking to just you, Rob.

Did the man commonly referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", the son of Mary (wife of Joseph), exist as a real person in history?

Yes or no?

Wow! Well I'll take that as a retraction...

I have no idea if he existed. No one can possibly know.

I'm sure there were plenty of people around who would roughly meet the description.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 11:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I've never heard one atheist ever who actually cares. Where are you getting this data from?

rob-

I've gone back and read your interaction with Tim O'Neill in this forum.

I know you know there are Jesus Mythers out there.

Mythicism is intellectually lazy.

Why is it lazy?
There is insufficient evidence for an existing Christ.

I tend to think that there probably was a David Koresh type of charismatic cult leader who got bigged up by his followers.

I base this on the contortions taken to excuse his rather ignoble death.