JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

I'll bite. How many close personal friends do you have outside of your cult? Answer: None. It fits verbatim your first dictionary definition of isolation. Away from others. Your cult even has a name for "others". Worldly. No association outside the cult. No associations with "Worldly" people. Would your cult allow you to marry a spouse outside of the faith? Isolated. Cult

I know this wont sink in with you, but declaring yourself the victor of an argument, or printing your arguments in upsized, bolded, and colored fonts, or being banned from a forum does not mean you made an effective argument. It makes you an obnoxious annoyance.

Many forums, including this one, have rules written specifically against making posts in all colored and/or bold and/or large font. This forum just happens to be a bit more tolerant of bad behavior. After several bans, most people of average IQ would get the idea their behavior needed to change, but you take it as a sign that you made an effective argument.

Its the problem with arguing with heavily indoctrinated people. There is quite literally no argument, no matter how heavily supported by facts, no matter how clearly presented, no matter how well articulated that you will accept. If you actually wanted to inform yourself, you would read this book, but you wont. Why not? Because the words in it are considered "Apostasy" and reading such a book would get you ejected from your beloved religion. Its just the biography of a former member of your "governing body". What could be so bad about that? Answer: The same thing that is so bad about higher education, according to Witnesses. Real information is the enemy.

I have no hatred for the witnesses. Nobody is forcing you to be a witness other than yourself, though there can be no understating the psychological pressure being applied to you. Conform. Do not question. Do not associate outside of your cult. Failure to comply will result in ostracism by the only [fair weather] friends we allowed you to keep.

If I did feel any emotion towards witnesses it would be pity. Chances are you will sacrifice a good portion of your life perpetuating this crap, never forming real relationships with people. The best thing I can wish upon you is that you either a) wake up as soon as possible and change your life or b) never question your faith until the day you die. Pissing away 40 years selling snake oil only to discover it is all BS could crush your spirit.

BTW, I don't care who you are, this video is damn funny.
[video=youtube;vHt5USBMxkc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHt5USBMxkc[/video]

 

ALTER2EGO -to- OBAMANATION:

I know this won't sink in with you, but below, once again, are the dictionary definitions of "cult" and "isolation."

DEFINITION OF "CULT":

(Source: American Heritage Dictionary
http://americanheritage.yourdictionary.com/cult


DEFINITION OF "ISOLATION":
"Isolation is the state of being alone or away from others. (noun)
An example of isolation is a prisoner in solitary confinement."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/isolation

 

Still waiting.....

 

ALTER2EGO -to- OBAMANATION:

You'll be waiting a very long time. I don't discuss my personal business with strangers on the Internet--particular those that are clearly obsessed and so dense, that they cannot accept the fact that the word "cult" refers to every type of existing religion. Does that ring a bell?

 

Lets correct you on Josephus since you apparently arent a historian.
There were 2 passages in Josephus in which he spoke of Jesus Christ. While you are correct that one is considered an interpolation by most scholars whether Christian, or atheist new testament scholars, there was another passage by Josephus in which he mentioned Jesus the so called Christ in which almost all New testament historians consider to be written by Josephus. Your ignorance of what the expert Historians believe show your bias against Christianity . Suffice to say that you wont be using many main stream historians, whether Christian or not in your posts. So you have only embarressed yourself because the second passage is conclusively believed by the majority of Historians to have come from Josephus. Its funny that you never mentioned the second passage by Josephus, Could it be that your not interested in the truth but are looking for ways to make your atheism look valid.

""Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. """

This passage is considered authentic by almost all new testament scholars no matter what religion they were from, and this is a secular account for Jesus, so your Jesus Myther belief is debunked right there.

Ill give u a clue to start with. Even the lunatic fringe Jesus Seminar believed in the historical Jesus, and they even Believed that Jesus the person was crucified and believed that he was the founder of the Christian religion. The historicity of the bible by even secular standards is stronger than the historicity of any ancient book or person.

You mention that the ancient historians mentioned Hercules and zeus but that we shouldnt believe that they were actual persons. The problem here is your line of reasoning. Zeus and hercules were never written about as historic persons, but Jesus was.
This is why even atheist historians think that anyone who believes that Jesus the founder of Christianity didnt exist is far even beyond the lunatic fringe Jesus Seminar and believe me they are far out there. What does that say about you my friend.
\
You obviously dont understand the criterion of Historicity, and your reasoning in historical terms seems to have come from a crackerjack box atheist site. The majority of new testament scholars whether atheist, agnostic or Christian believed that the historical Jesus Existed.

Thank God they dont have someone like you teaching contemporary history , because by your criterion nothing in history ever existed. Alexander the great according to your standards of historical criterion never existed because the historicity for him is far more poor then it is for Jesus.

Why dont you do yourself a favor. Instead of embarressing yourself on these historical matters why not start reading what the new testament scholars have written on this subject. Use your vaunted logic and reason and research before you spout things that almost no New testament scholar, regardless of his religion believes.

And this is why you wont get called out on most of the time here because this is digital point forum where you cant argue with people that know their new testament historicity will call u out on. I dont post much here anymore precisely because of the garbage content that comes from people like you.

Now if the Jesus Seminar believes that the historical evidence is strong for the existence of Jesus, the founder of Christianity, then your not gonna have much luck convincing the rest of us rational people that he didnt exist, but then again most of your posts on this thread are emotional then they are historically accurate.

If you want to know what Most new testament scholars, whether christian, atheist, agnostic or liberal theology believed a good place to start is with the minimal facts approach used by Professor Gary Habermas.

Now u maybe an allstar on digital point with all of your atheist buddies, but in the real woorld your historical bias wouldnt even be considered part of the lunatic fringe. In fact The Jesus Seminar would distance itself from your posts if you were a part of their organization. This is why No main stream new testament historian would consider Jesus Mythers anything but loons that have no idea what True Historic criterion entails.

I have no time to go through the rest of your dribble. This post wasnt for you mainly. It was to show the rest of the honest seekers here the BS that you actually post doesnt entail the true Historicity that almost all new etstament scholars can agree upon when it comes to the existence of the historical Jesus.

 

More on the minimal facts approach written by someone that actually took the time to get the opinions of even critical scholars, unlike the poster that I responded to. Even the unbelieving anti Christian scholar Bart Ehrman knows the evidence is too strong to deny for Jesus's existence.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

everyone one of these statements are believed by the majority of new testament Scholars whether critics or Christian or liberal theology.


Buts lets go to one of the most critical scholars of the existence of Jesus, namely Wells.

""Very surprisingly, Wells even admits the severity of his plight:

If Paul means blood brother of a historical Jesus, then it would suffice to establish--against my view--that Jesus had really lived in the first half of the first century. Furthermore, I must admit that this interpretation of Paul's words does seem the immediate and obvious one. Here, then, is a case where what seems to be the plain sense of a text . . . would weigh very heavily indeed against my view of Christian origins. (HEJ, 167)
But there are several reasons that Paul was referring to Jesus' brother. As Wells states, this is the normal way to understand this passage. Second, in I Corinthians 9:5, the Lord's brothers refer to individuals who are authoritative enough to be compared to Peter and the apostles, not to some obscure group of believers. Third, all four gospels refer to Jesus' physical brothers. [ix] James is even specified as one of them (Mk. 6:3; Matt. 13:55-56). Whatever date is assigned to these books, they plainly understood the tradition in a way that disagrees with Wells. Fourth, we will discuss below Jewish historian Josephus, who also calls James the brother of Jesus. [x] But Josephus would hardly be referring to a sectarian group of believers known within the church! Fifth, there is no historical evidence to support Wells' specific contention concerning James.

So this leaves Wells to face his own critique stated above. That he is clearly wrong about James weighs heavily against his entire thesis concerning the historical Jesus, just like he admits."""


"""The most important problem for Wells' treatment is Josephus' testimony. In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning both of Josephus' references to Jesus. Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also "widely admitted" by scholars (HEJ, 18; DJE, 10-11). But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.

While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus' longer statement in Antiquities 18:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus. Princeton Seminary's James Charlesworth strongly concludes: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus." [xi] John Drane adds that "most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity"of the passage's nucleus. [xii] Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus' statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate. It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells' dating.

Josephus' second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities 20:9). This also hurts Well's thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles. [xiii] In spite of Wells' dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees--HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage." [xiv]""

Notice that Yamauchi says that few scholars question the genuiness of this passage.
So Pladecalvo does the typical atheist dance and presents the parts of Josephus that are very well known to be interpolations (not the same as forgeries, but then again Pladecalvo probably knows this but is hoping most Christians and newbies wont know this), and in typical deceptfull athesit fashion leaves the passage that most new testament scholars universally agree was actually josephus who not only called Jesus the brother of james but also the so called Christ. Most knowledgable atheists will never argue that Jesus Never existed, but then again this is digital point. Not a place where the intellectual atheists congregate.

Pladecalvo and obamanation are clumped up into the brand of atheists who dont know what contemporary new testament scholars believe and dont much care what they believe or know. They just want to present their delusioned side of History and hope they can decieve the people that havent truly studied their new testament history so that they can convert them before they actually studied the real facts.

And they ask me why I dont post here anymore? well, ignorance is the obvious answer. Out light decepit is the other.

As for Alter

 

I dont see what this has to do with the subject at hand. Oh yea, it doesnt

 

Wait a minute. So all these disciples were following Christ for 3 years, looking at alleged miracles, ate out of his hand while he was making dough with his tricks, and with all that they were doubters? Then what do you want from US, father?

 

13. Point 1-12 are just BS that is based on unconfirmed stories.

 

Nonsense. Rapunzel was indeed locked in a tower and escaped by climbing down with her own hair. Its a historical fact! Prove it isnt!

 

Its actually virtually copy pasted from the story of Egyptian god Horus. There is also walking on the water, cross, etc were involved. A hell of a lot more than 1-12 of his points

 

Religions are full of BS, so it is no surprise that it is more.

 

well in this case they didnt even bother to make up an original story

 

And this is why no major egyptlogist or new testament scholar that agrees with you. The horus claim by you is just that a claim.

If anyone wants to see why no major egyptologist or new testament scholar regardless of their religious beliefs believe lets take you to a video that explains everything when it comes to the supposed comparison between horus and Jesus.
This guy does a great job in explaining horus and explaining Jesus so level headed normal people can understand why no mainstream historians or egyptologists say that Jesus was taken from horus. Its simply a lie.

And this is why the medical community is starting to find a connection between atheism and certain mental disorders.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...see-purpose-behind-the-events-in-their-lives/


In a second experiment, Heywood and Bering compared 27 people with Asperger’s with 34 neurotypical people who are atheists. The atheists, as expected, often invoked anti-teleological responses such as “there is no reason why; things just happen.” The people with Asperger’s were significantly less likely to offer such anti-teleological explanations than the atheists, indicating they were not engaged in teleological thinking at all. (The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.)
Medical science itself is starting to find this out, and that is why I spend less time arguing with atheists and more time praying for a cure for this mental disorder. You guys simply cant help the way you reason. It kind of reminds me of the nutcase that goes to a shrink and tells the shrink "Im not crazy, the rest of the world is". At this point I can became the bigger idiot by arguing with you or I can just say YES YOUR RIGHT.

Yes ok uhuh whatever you say lol

 

The fact that you mocked people with Asperger's proves how sophomoric you are, because people with high-functioning Asperger's and Autism usually think about things using logic and numbers, and have higher IQs than most "normal" folks. Try again.

 

I am a Hindu but brought up in catholic missionary school. I believe Jesus was not a myth. How can he be?

 

VERY VERY EASILY. Make up a lie, repeat it during 2000 years and it becomes almost a fact.

 

Well, Like I read elsewhere in this forum, it's a matter of faith. I don't go into that aspect for now but all I say is even if you pick up a truth and repeat it for 2000 years, it becomes a fact too.