Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Mister Agenda]

[quote='Chad32' pid='865189' dateline='1423090609']

For starters, Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messaiah.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca/resources-i...sh-messiah

Not many people outside of Jews for Jesus consider them Jews. Most of them seem to be pretty much regular Evangelicals who have decided they qualify as Jews. Of those who bear Jewish ancestry, a lot of them seem to have been raised Christian rather than Jewish.

As an authority, they're lacking.

[Minimalist]

You are in a minority (perhaps even on this forum) since most scholars have not come to realize Jesus was not a historical figure.

You've asserted this many times in this thread. Cite your sources, please.

Oh that's easy. Every shithead with a theology degree says there was a jesus and that's enough for believers to swallow their own dicks.

As J D Crossan has pointed out the very fact that historians have proposed so many different "jesuses" all based on the same stupid gospel based evidence is serious reason to doubt their conclusions. But you will never get a moron who thinks this shit is true to admit that.

The better question is: Find me ONE historian (not theologian) who is not associated with some church or seminary who believes that jesus came back from the dead and flew up to heaven. The field will suddenly get much thinner!

[robvalue]

Steve: I give up. You're not even vaguely addressing my points. You're answering entirely different ones I didn't make.

[SteveII]

I don't care if you believe the events of Jesus' life actually happened or not. But the consequences of rejecting the gospels is that a significant number of people intentionally lied. Then the question is to what end? This all goes toward the probability assessment of whether the first Christians believed in the actual key events in Jesus' life.

"Lied' is the wrong word. "Wove tales" would be more apt.

---

So you are saying Galilean fisherman probably had access to libraries (in their language) in order to tell Paul some lies. Or are you saying Paul was the mastermind and got the disciples to change their stories 20 years later to match something he concocted from these scrolls he may or may not have had access to?

Or how about:
that there weren't any Galilean fisherman;
or that Paul never spoke with them;
or the Galilean fisherman exaggerated;
or Paul misunderstood the Galilean fisherman;
or Paul exaggerated?

You are a tad too credulous.

You mean someone lied, lied, lied and lied. No one seems to want to tell me why the assumption is all these writers lied. Or is it more proper to assume a writer of an ancient document is not being intentionally deceitful until it can be proven or at least a plausible explanation why the contents are false. There are at least 8 authors of these 27 docs.

[pocaracas]

Steve: I give up. You're not even vaguely addressing my points. You're answering entirely different ones I didn't make.

And he's not even reading mine!

[Mister Agenda]

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote:

appeal to authority

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

appeal to authority and popularity -within- an appeal to authority

Robert M. Price (an atheist)

appeal to authority

who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars

reassertion of the majority opinion

Michael Grant (a classicist)

appeal to authority

states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus'

poisons the well

Richard A. Burridge states:

appeal to authority

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

poisons the well

Jesus christ man just show us some fucking evidence!

An appeal to authority is not automatically fallacious. The fallacy ought to be called 'appeal to inappropriate authority' to be less confusing. It is not a fallacy to cite someone who is an actual authority on the topic under discussion. If I cite Einstein on relativity, I shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, the citation requires a rebuttal: show how Einstein was wrong or how I am not correctly understanding Einstein's position.

It would be a fallacy for me to cite the vast majority of electricians being unconvinced by climate change claims as a reason to disbelieve those claims, but it is not a fallacy for me to cite the vast majority of climatologists being convinced by those claims as a reason to believe them.

[pocaracas]

You mean someone lied, lied, lied and lied. No one seems to want to tell me why the assumption is all these writers lied. Or is it more proper to assume a writer of an ancient document is not being intentionally deceitful until it can be proven or at least a plausible explanation why the contents are false. There are at least 8 authors of these 27 docs.

I'm sure you know the expression:

[robvalue]

Steve: I give up. You're not even vaguely addressing my points. You're answering entirely different ones I didn't make.

And he's not even reading mine!

I don't know why people come here if they don't want an honest debate. Sorry you're being ignored.

[downbeatplumb]

And he's not even reading mine!

I don't know why people come here if they don't want an honest debate. Sorry you're being ignored.

He doesn't want a debate, he just wants to restate his case over and over again.

[Chas]

"Lied' is the wrong word. "Wove tales" would be more apt.

---

Or how about:
that there weren't any Galilean fisherman;
or that Paul never spoke with them;
or the Galilean fisherman exaggerated;
or Paul misunderstood the Galilean fisherman;
or Paul exaggerated?

You are a tad too credulous.

You mean someone lied, lied, lied and lied. No one seems to want to tell me why the assumption is all these writers lied. Or is it more proper to assume a writer of an ancient document is not being intentionally deceitful until it can be proven or at least a plausible explanation why the contents are false. There are at least 8 authors of these 27 docs.

Your thinking lacks any subtlety or discernment of shades of meaning, you only see in black and white.

You are completely brainwashed and are incapable of critical thinking.