JESUS <3

[Minimalist]

“As a historian, I think evidence matters.

Evidence does matter.  If only Bart had some that wasn't just the pious blather of believers.

[Randy Carson]

Randy Carson
Jesus did exist.

Me: A claim without evidence does not make it true.

I provided evidence for the existence of Jesus from Jewish and Roman sources in the "Minimal Facts" thread.

[Whateverist]

You know, this kind of question really does betray your own ignorance.

What is a question like this supposed to imply? The answer to such a question should be pretty obvious to any person who has done the least possible amount of research besides none at all IMO. But when a question like this is asked it only serves to muddy the waters between actual historical figures that have multitudes of evidence for their existence, and religious figures who have barely any at all besides the testimony of their respective religions.

Thanks, facebook friend.

Hey I thought I was your Facebook friend.  Geez, the way you're spreading it around makes me wonder if this is really special for you after all.  

[Randy Carson]

“As a historian, I think evidence matters.

Evidence does matter.  If only Bart had some that wasn't just the pious blather of believers.

Your own doctorate is in what field, Min?

Your work as a NT scholar is apparently unknown to Ehrman who states:

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” (Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)

[Brakeman]

Randy Carson
Jesus did exist.

Me: A claim without evidence does not make it true.

I provided evidence for the existence of Jesus from Jewish and Roman sources in the "Minimal Facts" thread.

Evidence that has been impeached is no longer evidence.

But why go about this so. You talk to jesus evey day don't you? Ask him to log on and answer our questions in person...

Oh wait.. I forgot.. you only talk to yourself and jesus is imaginary..

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks, facebook friend.

Hey I thought I was your Facebook friend.  Geez, the way you're spreading it around makes me wonder if this is really special for you after all.  

I get around.

[Randy Carson]

I provided evidence for the existence of Jesus from Jewish and Roman sources in the "Minimal Facts" thread.

Evidence that has been impeached is no longer evidence.

Apparently, you have not bothered to actually read the evidence presented in the thread.

I posted five points which are accepted as TRUE by the majority of NT scholars...not Christian NT scholars, but ALL NT scholars - believers and non-believers alike.

Contrary to your false assertion, the minimal facts have not been impeached.

But why go about this so. You talk to jesus evey day don't you? Ask him to log on and answer our questions in person...

Oh wait.. I forgot.. you only talk to yourself and jesus is imaginary..

Let's suppose for a moment that Jesus really did log on and post a response to you.

What are the odds that you would actually believe that it was Him?

Zero.

But why don't YOU talk to Jesus every day and see what happens? He can answer YOUR questions in person...

[Minimalist]

Evidence does matter.  If only Bart had some that wasn't just the pious blather of believers.

Your own doctorate is in what field, Min?

Your work as a NT scholar is apparently unknown to Ehrman who states:

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” (Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)

Poor widdle, Randy.  So insecure.  Put a couple of letters after your name and he'll follow you anywhere.

Listen fuckface.  I reserve the right to evaluate the evidence.  I get that you have no such inclination because you have found a bunch of fools who tell you what you want to hear.

It must be terrible to go through life groveling to the non-existent but I still want to see evidence that is not derived from the fervent imaginations of early xtian asswipes.

Get it now?

(Probably not.  Your kind never does.)

[Catholic_Lady]

Your own doctorate is in what field, Min?

Your work as a NT scholar is apparently unknown to Ehrman who states:

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” (Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)

Poor widdle, Randy.  So insecure.  Put a couple of letters after your name and he'll follow you anywhere.

Listen fuckface.  I reserve the right to evaluate the evidence.  I get that you have no such inclination because you have found a bunch of fools who tell you what you want to hear.

It must be terrible to go through life groveling to the non-existent but I still want to see evidence that is not derived from the fervent imaginations of early xtian asswipes.

Get it now?

(Probably not.  Your kind never does.)

(my bold)

Min, why do you have to be so mean sometimes?

[Randy Carson]

Worrrrrrd to the heathens!!  

So, do you think Jesus was a real person? I'm not asking if you think Jesus was divine, or if He performed miracles, or if He was crucified, died, and came back.

I'm simply asking if you think there was a man 2000ish years ago named Jesus who brought forth these new "ideas" that we now call Christianity.

From the results so far, you can begin to see the problem here, CL.

The majority of the people voting so far have indicated that they are Mythcists...a group that is so extreme in its views of Jesus that even most atheists think they're nuts.

Ehrman commented on these folks when he wrote:

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced."

IOW, this isn't an issue of the intellect remaining unconvinced; this is a refusal of the will to be moved. It's not that you can't provide convincing evidence; they simply won't accept it regardless of its merits because they don't want to.