Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-17-2019, 05:51 PM)madog Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:40 PM)madog Wrote: @Free

PS, the historical method doesn't define "Source unknown" as " insert your own shit here" as you seem to think LOL ...  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

No, what it defines is always the "Argument to the best explanation."

And it isn't yours.

It's mine.

Dance

"pats Free on the head and smiles at his imaginary friend on his shoulder" well at least someone agrees with you  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

What I know is, virtually every historian would not be able to disagree with me. My argument used all the the qualifiers, where yours uses none.

And that demonstrates to me that you don't have the first fucking clue how history is determined.

And you likely never will.

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-17-2019, 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:51 PM)madog Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:47 PM)Free Wrote: No, what it defines is always the "Argument to the best explanation."

And it isn't yours.

It's mine.

Dance

"pats Free on the head and smiles at his imaginary friend on his shoulder" well at least someone agrees with you  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

What I know is, virtually every historian would not be able to disagree with me. My argument used all the the qualifiers, where yours uses none.

And that demonstrates to me that you don't have the first fucking clue how history is determined.

And you likely never will.

Thumbs Up

Lets add, in your head no one could disagree with you ....
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-17-2019, 06:01 PM)madog Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:51 PM)madog Wrote: "pats Free on the head and smiles at his imaginary friend on his shoulder" well at least someone agrees with you  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

What I know is, virtually every historian would not be able to disagree with me. My argument used all the the qualifiers, where yours uses none.

And that demonstrates to me that you don't have the first fucking clue how history is determined.

And you likely never will.

Thumbs Up

Lets add, in your head no one could disagree with you ....

Just gibberish on your part.

Nothing interesting to see here, folks!

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-17-2019, 06:23 PM)Free Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 06:01 PM)madog Wrote:
(08-17-2019, 05:55 PM)Free Wrote: What I know is, virtually every historian would not be able to disagree with me. My argument used all the the qualifiers, where yours uses none.

And that demonstrates to me that you don't have the first fucking clue how history is determined.

And you likely never will.

Thumbs Up

Lets add, in your head no one could disagree with you ....

Just gibberish on your part.

Nothing interesting to see here, folks!

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

LOL  ... I suppose you need to get back to your growing fan base  .... (how many imaginary friends can you balance on your shoulder lol)  Dance  ROFL2  Dance
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Quote:And you think every historian MUST be a theologian if they accept the greater possibility that Jesus existed as an ordinary man.


I don't give a flying fuck what your asshole religitards THINK.  It is the paucity of evidence and the simple fact that no one worshiped a "historical" jesus, at all.  The jesus they worshiped was a myth.  They never needed an actual person because such a belief could get them burned at the stake by xtian scumbags.

The HJ is a result of the embarrassment of religious fools that for centuries they were conned into asserting that a miracle working godboy was real.  Sucks to be you.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-17-2019, 07:26 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:And you think every historian MUST be a theologian if they accept the greater possibility that Jesus existed as an ordinary man.


I don't give a flying fuck what your asshole religitards THINK.  It is the paucity of evidence and the simple fact that no one worshiped a "historical" jesus, at all.

Why would anyone worship a "historical Jesus?" Wouldn't he just be an ordinary man if he was historical? 

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between the belief system of Christianity and the historicity of the ordinary man of which Christianity created its false belief system about.

No rational person believes that Jesus- as so described in the Gospel records- existed. No researcher of history, such as myself, pays much attention to the Gospel records at all because, aside from the crucifixion of Jesus, there is nothing else there that can be used to establish the historicity of him as an ordinary man. The only other historical value of the Gospel records is to show the origins of the Christian religion, not the actual origins of Jesus or anything else.

When we examine the Gospel records, they all show clear signs of the embellishment of not just Jesus, but of other historical personages who have been proven to exist. You have John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, Herod the Tetrarch, among many others. These are actual historical people who also had their lives mythologized within the Gospel records, therefore there is no reason that this Jesus fellow somehow should be the exception.

Like I said, you don't care about this stuff. All you care about is denying every last thing that could possibly point to some actual person named Jesus as existing, for whatever nonsensical reason. You constantly accuse me and other historians of being religiously biased just because the evidence actually does exist to support the probability of historicity, and we refuse to deny it exists.

You obviously have some serious anger issues with religion. When your hatred of it consumes your ability to rationalize and reason effectively, and/or you strain in vain to disprove the non-disprovable with incoherent arguments that force us to look at you incredulously, the only thing left for us to do ... is to pity you.

Dude, I fucking pity you. I seriously do. Whatever is going on inside your head needs to be examined professionally.

Seriously.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(08-15-2019, 12:57 AM)Free Wrote:
(08-14-2019, 11:27 PM)grympy Wrote: I'm posting this reply in the hope  of having  a couple of questions answered.  I make no claims  of being a  serious biblical scholar, so I ask your patience, if I have written any howlers or other indications of ignorance.

I think my position on the historicity of Jesus might be what someone has labelled historical reductionism.  If so, what is wrong with this perspective?

It is my understanding that there is  no contemporary evidence  for the existence  of Jesus.   This is not at all suspicious to me, given the time and place and the fact (?) That most if not all of Jesus' disciples would have been illiterate.

Actually, the letters of Paul were written by a contemporary; Paul the Apostle.
...
Actually, Paul might be a literary invention of Marcion.
That withstanding, Paul's source was Christ and he preached according to his hallucinatory experience of Christ.
There is a problem if we accept hallucinatory revelations as valid history. @Free ??
And prior to your interest @grympy Tacitus source isn't likely Roman either.
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: Schrodinger's Outlaw, 1 Guest(s)