Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2015 at 11:02 am by robvalue.)
Lol good point, my apologies!
Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 11:41 am
Even primary sources need to be approached with caution.
Caesar's Gallic Wars are primary sources because he wrote them about his own actions but he still made the absurd claim the 250,000 Gauls came to relieve Alesia. People lie.
With 'jesus' we have no such problem because we have no primary sources.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2015 at 12:14 pm by Pizza.)
(August 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Lol good point, my apologies!
Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer. The "most historians think Jesus existed" claim apologists like him make is misleading, since they don't ask for the details and qualifications of each historians views on the historicity of Jesus problem. I'd bet you most would say we can't tell the man from the myth. I remember in high school we had a world history textbook that said historians don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not. Make of that what you may.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm
(August 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Lol good point, my apologies!
Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.
It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm
(August 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (August 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Lol good point, my apologies!
Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.
It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway. But who would die for a lie?!
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:28 pm
(August 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Pizza Wrote: But who would die for a lie?!
I don't think Jesus had much of a choice, at the end there.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:29 pm
(August 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Pizza Wrote: (August 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway. But who would die for a lie?!
Yeah....who?
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm
The "bible scholars" referred to get their money from colleges that have strong theistic support to fund their departments. Atheist don't donate much to religious studies departments. For Bart Ehrman to remove every bone of jesus would seriously damage his department's funding and make him less employable, whether he admits it or not.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 12:42 pm
And for an example of that...
http://www.gwhatchet.com/2014/02/17/top-...ons-major/
Quote:Classics scholar, fired from last college for criticizing Bible, will help plan new major at GW
If you don't know who Chris Rollston is, here is his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rollston
But none of that matters when you tell your boss that his fucking bible is a piece of shit.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem
August 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm
(August 6, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Pizza Wrote: (August 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Lol good point, my apologies!
Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer. The "most historians think Jesus existed" claim apologists like him make is misleading, since they don't ask for the details and qualifications of each historians views on the historicity of Jesus problem. I'd bet you most would say we can't tell the man from the myth. I remember in high school we had a world history textbook that said historians don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not. Make of that what you may.
Indeed, it is even worse than that. Habermas has never released the list of supposed 'scholars' he claims give him 75% support for his minimal facts bullshit.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...urrection/
Quote:Habermas admitted in 2012, “Most of this material is unpublished.” With his data secret, his conclusions are uncheckable. Carrier says that Habermas has denied repeated requests to review his data.
Quote:Habermas is happy to reject the conclusion of 99% of the experts who understand evolution (see his attitude toward evolution here, here, and here). Ditto for William Lane Craig. Neither is in a position to object to anyone rejecting the 75% conclusion about the resurrection.
There is no grounds by which a layman like Habermas can reject a consensus in science.
Habermas is, in short, a bullshit artist...but anyone with a brain knows that as soon as they see Liberty University.
|