No, you can disagree with me all you like, it's a free internet.

But you use inconclusive evidence to say you're right.
Thats simply not true.

Like i posted before, there's not enough documents (yet) found to say its for sure he did/did not exist.

You keep on banging using dismissive terms as magic, space wizard (in another thread) etc.
What you might want to realise is, that however YOU feel about a religion, it doesnt give you the right to mock or even insult a system or beliefset if you like by which generations of people got baptised, married and burried.
Critique?
Absolutely allowed.

But we're at a point where it doesnt make sense to go on, ive said its inconclusive to have a final say about it, and then you keep going on about such and so and this and that.

I don't want to be a prick and just dissapear halfway out of a discussion, but at this point i really dont know what more to say.

Do you wonder why I take the approach I do? He will stay perched upon that high horse of his, just like he did when he was a ninjer...same dude different rhetoric

Virus was a ninjer?

it doesnt give you the right to mock or even insult a system or beliefset

I haven't followed this whole thread but I do disagree with this statement. C'mon Lebell look at the way you mock chunners, ninjers and others who BELIEVE they can fight even though there is zero evidence. I mean this training has been going on for generations and is handed down by masters, etc, etc, etc.

Any belief system is fair game. Put up proof, live with the mocking or drop the need to believe.

I haven't followed this whole thread but I do disagree with this statement. C'mon Lebell look at the way you mock chunners, ninjers and others who BELIEVE they can fight even though there is zero evidence. I mean this training has been going on for generations and is handed down by masters, etc, etc, etc.

Any belief system is fair game. Put up proof, live with the mocking or drop the need to believe.

So tell me this...what is the point of religion?

No, you can disagree with me all you like, it's a free internet.

But you use inconclusive evidence to say you're right.
Thats simply not true.

It would be inconclusive if there was some evidence for and some against, however there is none for and some against. If you're personally prepared to accept tampered anonymous hearsay as evidence that's fine just please don't represent me in court.



Like i posted before, there's not enough documents (yet) found to say its for sure he did/did not exist.

And when those documents are found I'll gladly admit that I was wrong but for now I'm falling back on the null-hypothesis.



You keep on banging using dismissive terms as magic, space wizard (in another thread) etc.


That which is accepted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



What you might want to realise is, that however YOU feel about a religion, it doesnt give you the right to mock or even insult a system or beliefset if you like by which generations of people got baptised, married and burried.


Actually I do have the right to ridicule religion and other ideas people claim to be certain about for no valid reason at all. The M1k3 is absolutely correct, if you're going to demand respect for your ideas then you're going to have to demand it for people who believe in Chi powers and the superiority of wing chun anti-grappling which I'm sure is something that 90% of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists on this site have ridiculed without the slightest thought of "respect" ever crossing their minds. You think that doesn't offend them and hurt their feelings?




I don't want to be a prick and just dissapear halfway out of a discussion, but at this point i really dont know what more to say.

If you want to go back to discussing whether Jesus settled in Kashmir just say the word and I'll not post in this thread. Just let me say that it's like discussing whether Hercules settled in Kashmir.



Do you wonder why I take the approach I do? He will stay perched upon that high horse of his, just like he did when he was a ninjer...same dude different rhetoric

You're one to talk about high horses zap with your eyerolling and Yoda parables.

Belivers and skeptics alike might be interested in The Jesus Project which is an academic program to sort out what can really be accepted about Jesus on the basis of strict standards of evidence. Read about it here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html

and read about Richard Carrier's subjective impression of the conference here: http://www.richardcarrier.blogspot.com/

According to the Bible, Jesus was starved, whipped, stabbed with a spear in the rib, with nails in his hands (or wrists), nails in his feet (or lower shin), and a crown of thorns. If he managed to get out of a execution device thats meant to dry you out and suffocate you (it puts tension on your chest cavity or lungs or something, there was a whole documentary on it featured on the history channel). All of this at the peak of day or dawn (sources vary) on top of a hill in Jerusalem, Israel which is in the very hot Middle East. While escaping the views of a probable 100 or so people surrounding the hill then managed to get anywhere more than 10 miles outside the city then holy ****.

You're one to talk about high horses zap with your eyerolling and Yoda parables.

Belivers and skeptics alike might be interested in The Jesus Project which is an academic program to sort out what can really be accepted about Jesus on the basis of strict standards of evidence. Read about it here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html

and read about Richard Carrier's subjective impression of the conference here: http://www.richardcarrier.blogspot.com/


All those Ashida Kim videos... I thought that is how you people liked to be addressed...

So tell me this...what is the point of religion?

Grasshopper, religion is like a ball. It has no top, no bottom, no beginning, no end and of course no point.

Luminous beings are we, not this... crude matter!

I'd just like to add that the Gospel of Mark's reliability is further reduced as it was written by someone who was not a Jew, not a local of Palestine and didn't use either as a source as the writer makes various geographical errors and sociological errors about Jewish customs.

Virus, did ancient near-eastern documents use APA or Chicago citation format for their sources?

I'd just like to add that the Gospel of Mark's reliability is further reduced as it was written by someone who was not a Jew, not a local of Palestine and didn't use either as a source as the writer makes various geographical errors and sociological errors about Jewish customs.

You do understand that the logic that the person you are misqouting is basing all of their assertions on falls apart if the figure it's all about actually is made up, right?

I'm sorry I don't follow HappyOldGuy.

I was wondering if I could get your comment on something. Two things actually. The first is the lack of references to Jesus's ministry, birth, trial, execution, famous preachings (like the sermon on the mount) in Paul's epistles, which pre-date the Gospels and are written about 10 years after Jesus's alleged death. These details are central points in Christian theology, ask any christian to write a page about Jesus and I'm sure 99% of them would include these basic details. The best explanation I've read from apologists is that the early Christian writers didn't care about these things. So what's your comment on that?

The second is the lack of a reference by Philo who lived at the right time and place. He had close family connections with the government, wrote extensively on religious affairs, wrote about Pontious Pilate. I know that you hold to the "blip on the radar" hypothesis but I think you'll need to advocate a pretty small blip to explain the dearth of contemporary evidence. Do you believe the Gospel accounts are consistent with a small blip? How much of the gospel story do you sacrifice to make it conform to the blip hypothesis?

I'm not trying to "stick it to you" I'm just interested how you approach what appears to be significant problems in the assumption of a historical Jesus.

I'm sorry I don't follow HappyOldGuy.

I was wondering if I could get your comment on something. Two things actually. The first is the lack of references to Jesus's ministry, birth, trial, execution, famous preachings (like the sermon on the mount) in Paul's epistles, which pre-date the Gospels and are written about 10 years after Jesus's alleged death. These details are central points in Christian theology, ask any christian to write a page about Jesus and I'm sure 99% of them would include these basic details. The best explanation I've read from apologists is that the early Christian writers didn't care about these things. So what's your comment on that?

The second is the lack of a reference by Philo who lived at the right time and place. He had close family connections with the government, wrote extensively on religious affairs, wrote about Pontious Pilate. I know that you hold to the "blip on the radar" hypothesis but I think you'll need to advocate a pretty small blip to explain the dearth of contemporary evidence. Do you believe the Gospel accounts are consistent with a small blip? How much of the gospel story do you sacrifice to make it conform to the blip hypothesis?

I'm not trying to "stick it to you" I'm just interested how you approach what appears to be significant problems in the assumption of a historical Jesus.
For the letters, I take them at face value*. They were written to specific people for specific purposes. Usually to resolve conflicts within the early christian communities they were addressed to. Paul never claimed to have even met jesus, and as you point out, this is before the gospels (or even proto gospels) were in circulation. They do reference the crucifiction constantly, plus moral teachings that are "biblical" if not quoted chapter and verse and also the last supper and a couple of other key bits.

So it's not at all surprising to me that he doesn't talk alot about those topics. A) he wouldn't have known that much, some of the people he was writing to quite possibly knew more, and B) it would have been off topic.

Philo died ~50 ad. Roughly the time of the pauline epistles. So lets go back to those epistles and see what kind of a church they represent. These are being written to people by name, who paul has met personally, who are hosting small communities in their houses. These are all churches that paul directly helped found, and notably none of them are in north africa. According to church tradition, the church in alexandria was founded by St Mark somewhere right around (+/- 5 years) philos death. So again, just taking things at face value, there really isn't much of a conflict.


* for purposes of this discussion,


And I'm not at all worried about you sticking it to me, but you are acting just like a creationist pushing for one more transitional fossil while being totally unwilling to put up a testable counter theory of any kind. And I'm very tired of dragging out silly skeletons. There is imperfect evidence for a historical jesus. There is zero, zilch, nil affirmative evidence that anyone made him up. Made up things about him, yes. Made him up, none.

For the letters, I take them at face value*. They were written to specific people for specific purposes. Usually to resolve conflicts within the early christian communities they were addressed to. Paul never claimed to have even met jesus, and as you point out, this is before the gospels (or even proto gospels) were in circulation. They do reference the crucifiction constantly, plus moral teachings that are "biblical" if not quoted chapter and verse and also the last supper and a couple of other key bits.

So it's not at all surprising to me that he doesn't talk alot about those topics. A) he wouldn't have known that much, some of the people he was writing to quite possibly knew more, and B) it would have been off topic.

Philo died ~50 ad. Roughly the time of the pauline epistles. So lets go back to those epistles and see what kind of a church they represent. These are being written to people by name, who paul has met personally, who are hosting small communities in their houses. These are all churches that paul directly helped found, and notably none of them are in north africa. According to church tradition, the church in alexandria was founded by St Mark somewhere right around (+/- 5 years) philos death. So again, just taking things at face value, there really isn't much of a conflict.


* for purposes of this discussion,


And I'm not at all worried about you sticking it to me, but you are acting just like a creationist pushing for one more transitional fossil while being totally unwilling to put up a testable counter theory of any kind. And I'm very tired of dragging out silly skeletons. There is imperfect evidence for a historical jesus. There is zero, zilch, nil affirmative evidence that anyone made him up. Made up things about him, yes. Made him up, none.


I bow to your patients

Grasshopper, religion is like a ball. It has no top, no bottom, no beginning, no end and of course no point.


Well then it seems it fills its role, unlike _ing _un or ninjers...