There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Rational Gaze]

One can only ask why.

In the case of Ehrman, he simply didn't have the intellectual and emotional wherewithal of having his fundamentalist views falsified. As opposed to Craig A. Evans, et al., who were intellectually and emotionally capable of having their incorrect beliefs corrected. You know, its funny how Craig Evans was tutored by guys like Burton Mack, et al. and yet didn't go along with their views. One can only ask why.

[lilpixieofterror]

All theistic arguments are fatally flawed. On this thread I meticulously refuted several theistic arguments such as the First Cause Argument. I refuted the claim that Josephus is a reliable historian. I refuted the argument that the gospels are based on historical events and people. Even Lilpixie admitted there is no evidence to support any of the events or the existence of any of the major figures described in the gospels. What other arguments would you like to see refuted?

Really? I said that? Now please give a link and quote where I said that because I do recall saying that there is never enough evidence to convince conspiracy nuts that their theories are whacked and I also recall saying that the same amount of evidence that proves other historical figures, you reject for major figures described in the gospels, but no where do I recall saying what you claim I am saying. I have a feeling that you just lack critical reading comprehension. For example; you tried to refute the claim that Josephus is a reliable historian; it's too bad though that the historian you used, also accepts that Jesus and the disciples as being real historical figures. So why do you trust his work when you agree with it, but don't trust his work on matters you disagree with? Inconsistent much? Sorry smackedbyavan, your 'arguments' have been shown lacking and have been refuted. You're just too stupid to see it. Now run back to your hole and let real historians do their historical work.

[Vansmack51]

Really? I said that?

I listed about a dozen events described in the gospels and asked you to provide some evidence that they really happened. You admitted there is no evidence and kept asking why there should be. No run along and crawl back under your rock stupid.

[Vansmack51]

And I do mean STUPID! You are the dumbest person I have ever come in contct with.

[lilpixieofterror]

I listed about a dozen events described in the gospels and asked you to provide some evidence that they really happened. You admitted there is no evidence and kept asking why there should be. No run along and crawl back under your rock stupid.

In other words, you didn't read everything I wrote and simply read what you wanted to hear and that is it. So smackedbyavan, beyond a written account of let us say... Jesus feeding of the 5,000. What sorts of physical evidence are we suppose to find indicating that the feeding of the 5,000 really took place? This is actually what I asked and not the strawmen recreation that you just created. Really smackedbyavan, did you fail reading comprehension back in your grade school days because that is the only way you can respond to what I said, with that strawman of an argument since that isn't all what I said. Now get cracking and answer my argument instead of just picking pieces of it and ignoring the entire context.

[shunyadragon]

In the case of Ehrman, he simply didn't have the intellectual and emotional wherewithal of having his fundamentalist views falsified. As opposed to Craig A. Evans, et al., who were intellectually and emotionally capable of having their incorrect beliefs corrected. You know, its funny how Craig Evans was tutored by guys like Burton Mack, et al. and yet didn't go along with their views. One can only ask why.

I consider this comparison of Bart Ehrman and Craig A Evans very bias and in accurate. They are both considered reputable scholars in their own right, and to some degree both have their own agenda that biases their conclusions.

The fact that Craig Evans was tutored by the like of Burton Mack only means he has been exposed to different views. It is a scholar's fool that thinks one's views must reflect their teachers in today's world. The door has swung both ways among scholars.

To note, Craig Evans assumption that most scholars reject the Jesus Seminar is an unfounded biased assumption. It in reality is a mixed response on the Jesus Seminar, some do and some do not, others take a mixed view on the results of their work.

Evans argument against the Jesus Seminar, Markan priority and Q may or may not be valid, but he cannot reasonably use the 'most scholars' argument to support him.

[lilpixieofterror]

And I do mean STUPID! You are the dumbest person I have ever come in contct with.

And remember children, this comes from the same person that has made claims like:

1. There is no depictions of Jesus, as a human, until the 8th century even though there are about two dozen different art depictions of Jesus, from the 1st to 8th centuries that one could have easily found, if they bothered to simply check their facts before posting.
2. Tried to claim that I didn’t say a star appeared to the Magi, even though I explained my claim several times that the events of the star first appearing and the later appearance of a ‘star’ is two different sightings.
3. Tried to claim that matter/energy has always existed even though he was shown several scientific studies from actual scientist that said just as I said, but he ignored that too.
4. Claims that Christians believe things without evidence, despite the fact that his own belief about babies being born atheist has absolutely no evidence to support it and continues to be an unsupported assertion that hasn’t been backed by any evidence to speak of.
5. Used a source that was by a guy that died before my great grandparents were born, but threw a huge fit when I used a source from a man that died less than 10 years ago.
6. Keeps yelling “WAAA!!! Appeal to authority!” whenever he was shown outright wrong on his claims, but has no problems appealing to non-experts and crack pots that support his Christ Myth theory.

And despite these assertions and arguments, that smackedbyavan has showed that he either doesn’t understand or was outright wrong in; I must be the ‘dumbest person’ that exists. So, will you admit to these 6 errors I’ve caught you in yet or will you simply pretend they didn’t happen like you always do?

[Rational Gaze]

I consider this comparison of Bart Ehrman and Craig A Evans very bias and in accurate.

I think you mean: "very biased and inaccurate." And no, it isn't. Bart Ehrman is rather disingenuous. Like how in Misquoting Jesus, he makes a big deal about how certain manuscripts omit "nor the son" in Matthew 24:36, even though a parallel passage in Mark 13:32 has no such omission in certain manuscripts, which Ehrman conveniently neglects to mention. His popular works are littered with this kind of stuff, although he usually has the self-control not to engage in such temerity in his professional work. For instance, the discussion on Matthew 24:36 does not appear in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. His entire mode of exposition consists of finding small, tiny textual problems (which textual critics have recognised for years) and then presenting them to the general public screaming: "OMG! TEXTUAL ERRORS!" I also have not seen him change his views despite several stringent criticisms that point out such errors. It seems as if Ehrman's only concern is to deliberately cause controversy and cause the chicken little types to join him in misguided scepticism.

To note, Craig Evans assumption that most scholars reject the Jesus Seminar is an unfounded biased assumption.

No, it's based on the fact that the Jesus Seminar are a heavily biased group of mostly nobodies. As far as I can recall, only 14 members are actually renowned scholars. Their methodology is sloppy and packed full of special pleading. The only people who take the Jesus Seminar seriously are themselves, and people who lack critical thinking. At least Ehrman uses consistent methodology (even if he does leave out a ton of relevant facts.) The Jesus Seminar just reject things out-of-hand, even if they pass their own criteria of authenticity purely because they disagree with where the evidence leads. They are a radical fringe and most certainly not representative of mainstream scholarship by any stretch of the imagination.

[Rational Gaze]

It is a scholar's fool that thinks one's views must reflect their teachers in today's world.

Try telling that to Tassman.

[Rational Gaze]

And I do mean STUPID!

You certainly would know all about that now, wouldn't you?

[Rational Gaze]

I listed about a dozen events described in the gospels and asked you to provide some evidence that they really happened. You admitted there is no evidence and kept asking why there should be. No run along and crawl back under your rock stupid.

in other words, you have no evidence to support your assertion. Ah, the hypocrisy of double standards brings a delicious, albeit pungent smell of irony to my nostrils. The sweet taste of self-contradictory buffoonery. Maybe if you took your blinders off, then your arguments would be on target, Stevie Wonder.

lol.jpg

[shunyadragon]

Try telling that to Tassman.

I am addressing ALL including you and Tassman. I do not TELL people what to believe.

[shunyadragon]

I think you mean: "very biased and inaccurate." And no, it isn't. Bart Ehrman is rather disingenuous. Like how in Misquoting Jesus, he makes a big deal about how certain manuscripts omit "nor the son" in Matthew 24:36, even though a parallel passage in Mark 13:32 has no such omission in certain manuscripts, which Ehrman conveniently neglects to mention. His popular works are littered with this kind of stuff, although he usually has the self-control not to engage in such temerity in his professional work. For instance, the discussion on Matthew 24:36 does not appear in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. His entire mode of exposition consists of finding small, tiny textual problems (which textual critics have recognised for years) and then presenting them to the general public screaming: "OMG! TEXTUAL ERRORS!" I also have not seen him change his views despite several stringent criticisms that point out such errors. It seems as if Ehrman's only concern is to deliberately cause controversy and cause the chicken little types to join him in misguided scepticism.

Your criticism does not support the contnetion that most scholars disagree with the Jesus Seminar. I would consider addressing your objections in appropriate threads, but not here.

No, it's based on the fact that the Jesus Seminar are a heavily biased group of mostly nobodies. As far as I can recall, only 14 members are actually renowned scholars. Their methodology is sloppy and packed full of special pleading. The only people who take the Jesus Seminar seriously are themselves, and people who lack critical thinking. At least Ehrman uses consistent methodology (even if he does leave out a ton of relevant facts.) The Jesus Seminar just reject things out-of-hand, even if they pass their own criteria of authenticity purely because they disagree with where the evidence leads. They are a radical fringe and most certainly not representative of mainstream scholarship by any stretch of the imagination.

Fourteen renowned scholars who did by far the majority of the work does not represent a 'group of no bodies.' the list included a lot of linguists and others who assisted and did not actually participate in the major work. People like you who hold a bitter bias toward scholars that do not agree with you represent the people who lack critical thinking. Actually Geza Vermes agrees with much of the criticism concerning the use of 'son of man and son of God,' and I do not think your stature in scholarship can touch his.

[Rational Gaze]

I am addressing ALL including you and Tassman.

Right. Even though Tassman is the one who was saying that, and I wasn't. You seem to have a hard time detecting irony and sarcasm. Kind of odd, since I have Asperger's Syndrome, and so am supposed to have a harder time detecting them myself. That's pretty ironic.

[Rational Gaze]

Your criticism does not support the contnetion that most scholars disagree with the Jesus Seminar. I would consider addressing your objections in appropriate threads, but not here.

Uh, the quoted part you are responding to was about Ehrman, not the Jesus Seminar. Do you normally have such a hard time keeping track of conversation?

Fourteen renowned scholars who did by far the majority of the work does not represent a 'group of no bodies.' the list included a lot of linguists and others who assisted and did not actually participate in the major work. People like you who hold a bitter bias toward scholars that do not agree with you represent the people who lack critical thinking. Actually Geza Vermes agrees with much of the criticism concerning the use of 'son of man and son of God,' and I do not think your stature in scholarship can touch his.

Right, so all you have is one scholar who agrees. Compared to the majority, who do not. I think I would be genuinely impressed if you actually bothered to back up your assertions with evidence. I don't think you are in any position to talk about credentials, considering you likely have none, whereas I am in my second year of a BA (Hons) in History, and will be doing an MA after that.