The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Aractus]

Danny, until you are willing to move out of your comfort zone of pious blather you will never learn anything.  I'm so sick of the shit you assholes pull wherein anyone who does not tell you what you want to hear is not a "real scholar."  Grow the fuck up.  Your fairy tales are not true.

Once again Min, it's not me who's saying they aren't real scholars - it's other scholars who say that:

Rich Griese

David,

I think that before we can begin to decide what “the historical jesus” might have said, we have to determine if we can demonstrate that such a character ever existed. I have not seen that done to date.

Cheers! RichGriese.NET

    larryhurtado

    Rich, I’ve engaged your repeatedly stated views before. No one. No one in scholarly circles dealing with ancient Judaism and early Christianity, of any religious or non-religious persuasion holds the view that Jesus never existed. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own truth.
    Let’s move on.

This has been pointed out to you numerous times. Your argument is disingenuous. You are selectively choosing which "historians" to take your selective beliefs from. This is no different to Holocaust denialism. And then you expect that the quacks who you quote from can stand alongside actual experts to complete your rather narrow world-view. You're the one that has blind beliefs and refuses to shift them when presented with evidence - not me. Why not surprise all of us and actually learn something of tangible value?

You start thread after thread on this same topic and you can't even discuss it. All you can do is quote from your book. You then make up facts that support your hypothesis and claim that you have tangible evidence - when we all know that you don't. Any time I or someone else presents you with a real problem to your mysticism you have a cry and start calling people names. I have less and less a belief that you're an intellectual of any kind, since you display a complete lack of appreciation of how to select an academic source of information to quote and babble on about. Any time we challenge you you call us a bunch of names and refuse to discuss the points put to you.

Galatians was most likely written around 45AD. You well know this. You can't exclude dates you don't like just because you don't like them and then claim that everything was written in the time-frame that would suite your hypothesis - that isn't academic it's called junk science.

Here's some info from real scholars (critical/sceptical ones not evangelicals and apologists):

"As for its date, all one can say with certainty is that Luke wrote this account after Mark composed his Gospel. The typical suggestion that Luke wrote around 85 ce is plausible, though the Gospel could have been completed five to fifteen years earlier or even five to ten years later."

"Although there is reason to doubt the identification of Luke as a companion of Paul, it cannot be denied that Luke admired Paul and viewed his missionary career as decisive for the establishment of Christianity in Asia Minor and Greece."

"The date of (Galatians)’s composition is not given. It was written some time between the late 40s and mid 50s ce. Paul would develop his views on the law further in the Letter to the Romans. Paul’s authorship is generally accepted by modern scholars."

(Source: New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Ed.)

Just because these quacks have swindled you out of your hard-earned and sold you a pile of manure doesn't mean the rest of us are stupid enough to not to smell the shit you've covered yourself in.