Merry Fucking Xmas, Jesus Freaks

[Minimalist]

Your bible is even lousy fiction.

[Cinjin]

It's almost as if Jesus ISN'T the "reason for the season."


{apropos snarky comment}

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Fellow Christians, are you tired of these Jesus mythers ruining the free ride we get from the insertion of our Lord into history?

In the good old days, we could silence them with the proper application of torture, forced confession and a burning at the stake. Unfortunately, those arrogant liberals have passed all these laws that say we can't use traditional methods of conversion anymore. Fear not, though, since there are still ways to shut them up or marginalize them in any discussion. Just follow these steps and you'll soon be a defending the faith like a pro:

Step 1: The Ad Hominem

The easiest way to win an argument is to simply not have it. Immediately move to dismiss the skeptic as a "crackpot". If you feel the need to be civil, say "outside of mainstream scholarship".

Dovetail these insults with some appeal to ridicule, with false comparisons to completely unrelated crackpottery about Jesus, like "Oh, someone's been reading Dan Brown's D'Vinci code."

Even if the debate proceeds to step 2, with any luck, you've poisoned the well before the skeptic can even present any objections.

Step 2: Appeal to Authority

Your opening salvo, once you are forced to take the Jesus skeptic seriously, is to appeal to scholarly consensus. "All the scholars say..." This argument works well because we Christians may not be able to execute anyone for blasphemy but we can still ruin careers and get professors fired for saying offensive things about our religion, so most can be convinced to go with the program or at least assume a Jesus, leaving him to the theologians to debate.

If the skeptic names a scholar who doubts a Jesus existed, such as Robert Price, you can refine your appeal to authority with a no-true-Scotsman argument, "no serious scholar...". What's a serious scholar? One who doesn't doubt that Jesus existed, of course.

Make sure to drag out this stage of the debate as long as possible to wear down your opponent and any spectators. Ignore repeated demands for evidence and just keep repeating the assertions that all the scholars are behind you. Drop names of specific scholars to mask the argumentum ad neuseum. I remember one apologist who stretched this stage out past literally seven demands for evidence before finally going to the next stage.

Step 3: The Usual Suspects

OK, arrive at this stage as late as possible and don't linger here long. The evidence is thin but here are the items you can trot out.

1. The Annals of Tacitus
2. The Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus
3. The Jamesian Reference of Josephus

If the savvy skeptic is familiar with these items, don't worry. Any objections to these items should be met with a dismissive "well, the scholars don't agree with you." and you can dance back to step 2.

Step 4: Jesus-of-the-Gaps

The savvy skeptic will note the oddity that such a controversial religious leader captured no one's attention during his lifetime and produced only a few late, oblique and questionable scraps in later centuries. Don't worry. Jesus conveniently shrinks down from "greatest story ever told" to "some guy who falls in the cracks of our knowledge" in the blink of an eye.

Jesus should become some obscure rabbi that only preached to the rabble and never generated much controversy while he lived. Ignore all the references in the Bible that say otherwise.

Shove the burden of proof onto the skeptic by demanding they prove this obscure rabbi with a common name for the time and place didn't exist.

Step 5: Wash, Rinse, Repeat

If none of this works, just hit the reset button and start over with step 1. You "win" when your opponent gets discouraged and goes home.

Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus!

---

EDIT: By the way

We don't call it "torture" or "burning at the stake" when we subject heathens to our righteous wrath.

We call these things "enhanced conversion techniques".

[Minimalist]

Your understanding of xtian horseshit is nearly godlike, yhwh.

[Brian37]

I hate the argument, "This person was real, this place was real"

In many Superman movies we see real places like New York City. But that does not mean a man can fly with a mere cape and leotard.

There is no such thing as godsperm or magic babies, which makes virgin births bullshit claims. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, making the "death on the cross" story bullshit. No one's spirit(because there is no such thing)survives their death and there is no such thing as a non material being.

Peppering myth with real people or real places does not make magic real. Mecca is a real place but Christians don't believe in Allah. Ciro is a real place but no one today believes the sun is a god. Mt Olympus is a real place but no one sane today believes that the Greek gods are real.

Myth is myth and bullshit is bullshit. I could claim that I lent Warren Buffet his money, so because I have the mere ability to string words together, and because Warren Buffet is a real person, that must mean I am a billionaire.