(November 29, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: To be entirely honest I don't understand why he is having such a hard time with this. I mean strip away all the fluff from the gospels and you basically have a 2000 year old Joseph Smith. Nothing extraordinary about that, the roman empire was full nutty cults and cult leaders.
This too is why I've become a Jesus Mooter. Beyond the fact that I've grown fatigued with dancing the Scholars Say Shuffle a million times, this is the debate they want to have, which is why he isn't moving on.
They want to be able to appeal to scholarly consensus for a change, to spend the whole debate however long it lasts posting "scholars say..." over and over again, to try to paint the skeptic as the screwball and to shift the burden of proof in to their court with a little slight-of-hand.
Everyone has noticed I hope that as soon as I said, "OK, some guy named Yeshua lived around that time, was a cult leader and ran afoul of Roman authorities; now prove all the claims of divinity and miracles" he immediately started ignoring me. He's well aware he has jack shit for evidence apart from some fallacious appeals to folklore and a few arguments from personal incredulity.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
