There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[headheart]

Jamie,

I'm going to have a go at your bits 'n pieces, a bit at a time.

You know all this don’t you - never let go of the opportunity to score a cheap point, what does mere accuracy matter?. But a word of advice, if you are going for The Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy, you need a lighter touch - you are much too heavy-handed to score laughs. And this is what you are about, isn't it Eric? Mockery!

I don't give a hoot about scoring points or laughs. More advice (rules) ? Nope, I'm hoping that you man up and present something of your own instead of appealing to only those who support your view. That's what I'm about.

[headheart]

This is a sustained attack on my alleged deficiencies, nothing more – a typical of certain theists around here - there are no debating points of your own, just empty verbiage and demands made of me.

Jamie,

I simply clearing the table so we can begin to approach this subject without anymore of your dodges.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Compared to whom?

Jamie,
Based on years of reading your threads, I think you know that being gracious in not one of your strong points.
Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Your defense of my credibility was faint praise indeed.

Not just “anti-Tassman” but anti-anybody who questions their ‘sacred cows’, because the bottom line is that their beliefs cannot be defended with substantiated evidence. They are faith-based beliefs, nothing more, hence the attempts to destroy the credibility of the opponent. That’s all you’ve got. The goal appears to be “if the opponents can’t be converted, shut them up - whatever it takes”. Dissent from the party line must be silenced or removed.

Some would regard this to be a totalitarian approach, as per theocracies and dictatorships throughout history. It is certainly the approach advocated by the Christian Right (and headheart perhaps??) and Christian Reconstructionists:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

Jamie,
I failed to move them with my words. It seems you have encouraged a response from people based on your style of posting. It's something you're going to have to sort out. I tried. Perhaps you might try singing you comment 'in earnest' or 'seeking truth' instead of 'their beliefs cannot be defended with substantiated evidence' and 'They are faith-based beliefs, nothing more, hence the attempts to destroy the credibility of the opponent,' followed by 'That's all folks!' etc. Try a little warmth and you might get some back. Perhaps you arguments aren't as good as you think they are? Why not show me a few where you've defeated someone in a head to head debate?
I think you draw the negativity by spreading negativity. It's how life works bru. Spread the love and you get some back.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Oh. I thought you were criticizing my lack of flexibility, now it seems I am too flexible.

A good case can be made for the mythical view of Jesus, in my view, but I hold to the view held by “most contemporary scholars…that from a purely historical perspective one can say no more about Jesus than he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate”. Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’.

This is the accepted scholarly position of most scholars and it does not allow for Jesus as a supernatural god/man. Conversely, scholars with a pre-commitment to biblical inerrancy do not take this position and these are obviously the scholars favored by theists, because they reinforce their own presuppositions re a miracle-working Jesus.

As for the resurrection of a spiritual body, as found in Paul, in direct contradiction to the gospel’s view of a fleshly resurrection, I think you will find that robrecht follows the same line.

Jamie,

Don't flatter yourself. You do not not concede a point easily even when you've been shown to be faulty in your opinion, however it's noted that you've changed though you run away change your view and then return with a new trick. It's just not honest Jamie. It's going to eventually catch up with you. Maybe not in my lifetime, but you can hide nicely on this forum but if you spent more time in the debate forum going head to head with some of the people you received a dunking from then I think you'd be getting somewhere and be scoring some of those points you speak of.

Your quote is much to simplistic. Not at all adequate to a serious discussion about this. I've done this before Jamie and so have you. Perhaps if you were less dismissive and less like those you criticize you'd find that people don't have to babysit your point of view the way that robrecht has patiently done and for which you showed him no respect. Shame on you.

Please present YOUR translation and commentary of the passage you are referring to?

I cannot vouch for robrecht's position having not yet seen anything substantive from either of you.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Yes one does. I suggest you “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the bolded and apply it to yourself. You have yet to demonstrate that you have any justification in taking the scholarly high ground and your pontification over my alleged deficiencies in this regard is absurd. You forget that your position is a faith-position only and not verified by credible evidence.

We agree. I shall.
I have not made the claim, Jamie. You have and unless you man up and present something substantive your one line claim amounts to nothing.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

No!

Am I a Jehovah’s Witness plant now, am I? Eric, it’s very hard to take your 'huffing and puffing' seriously.

Jamie,
I am not huffing or puffing. Are you continuing the same line of preconceptions that you have with robrecht? It won't work on me either. Preconceptions do not serve one well in DAD. (discussions, argument or debate)

Perhaps when you have time you might read the books already listed and then you may actually be able to make a positive contribution to the discussion for a change instead of just sneering.

Jamie,
The mistake you make is issuing orders to me and they are also based on further preconceptions. I am an avid reader. Schweitzer is interesting to me. Do not spoil that for me. I read the opening to Bart's book and see that it is not for scholars. I've listened to Gerd and don't find him very useful in the way he interprets scripture. It's not good. I'll give it a breeze but truly Jamie, YOU need to present me with YOUR OWN substantive support for your one line claim. Stop dodging!

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Poor Eric, think you are on a winner here, don't you – leader of the faithful against the Infidel and all that?

You seem to forget I have already said in #3350 that I will deal with robrech’s response if he makes one. Otherwise I will retire gracefully from the discussion. I will certainly not be caught up in debating isolated points raised by the usual suspects hoping to score cheap points"

And the same applies to you. You had your chance to contribute during the course of the debate but chose not to. And now you have the gall to play to the gallery as Grand Inquisitor.

And you seem to have missed my comment in #3350: “it’s Apocalyptic Prophet, my error". ( Is this not clear??)

Jamie,
This sort of comment is not appreciated. You are taking the same line of argument that you did with robrecht and it is not going to work on me. Cut it and attend to the task at hand.
I am not interested in scoring points. I did not contribute because I chose not to. We are busy here and now and you have made a claim that you have not substantiated. You have dodged your little heart away Jamie, it's time to either put your argument out here for your readers or run away and do what you've done in the past.

Grand Inquisitor (now there's a great title for you) of Christians.

Your comment is duly noted now man up and present a substantive argument of your own and stop playing silly buggers.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

See back to #3350 for my references re Jesus as failed Apocalyptic Prophet. It is not “Tasman’s view”, as you mockingly choose to dismiss it - but you knew this don’t you. This is what you call debate?

Ehrman’s ‘Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’:

“Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium seeks to show general readers what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God”. Excerpt from the product description.

There are quite a few others, Gerd Lüdemann being one of the best. But none of this is new - Albert Schweitzer in ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ at the turn of the century took much the same view.

Jamie,
You psychologist are such a sensitive bunch.

This is all good and well. The only problem with all three of these men you source study the Bible with their own preconceptions about Jesus. I've read most of Schweitzer and it was engaging to a point, I'm not going to put a book by a scholar for non-scholars (Bart's book) high on my list of priorities. Though I've read a bit and it is engaging on some level, I need something that's a bit more meaty to turn me on. I'm inundated with books and studies of my own to waste it on model B or C pedigree scholarship. I've listened to Gerd in debate and found myself nodding my head too much and wondering how he arrives at his conclusions about certain texts. It's not interesting to listen to someone who has such liberal view that it spoils proper interpretation of texts. It's yucky!

NB: This is not about Bart, Albert or Gerd - It is about YOUR CLAIM JAMIE and the fact that you have not yet presented YOUR substantive defense of it.


I think I'm beginning to hear the sound of a huge chicken whipping coming on!





Peace,
Eric.

[Tassman]

Jamie,

I'm going to have a go at your bits 'n pieces, a bit at a time.

It’s easier when an argument is broken into bite-sized pieces and removed from its context, isn’t it! Some would regard this as a dishonest tactic.

I don't give a hoot about scoring points or laughs. More advice (rules) ? Nope, I'm hoping that you man up and present something of your own instead of appealing to only those who support your view. That's what I'm about.

What you are about, Eric is trying to discredit your opponent personally in lieu of substantive argument. You have yet to address the actual topic.

Jamie,
I simply clearing the table so we can begin to approach this subject without anymore of your dodges.
Peace,
Eric.

MY dodges!!!

Jamie, Based on years of reading your threads, I think you know that being gracious in not one of your strong points.
Peace,Eric.

Unsupported personal opinion!

Jamie, I failed to move them with my words.

I can quite understand why.

It seems you have encouraged a response from people based on your style of posting. It's something you're going to have to sort out. I tried. Perhaps you might try singing you comment 'in earnest' or 'seeking truth' instead of 'their beliefs cannot be defended with substantiated evidence' and 'They are faith-based beliefs, nothing more, hence the attempts to destroy the credibility of the opponent,' followed by 'That's all folks!' etc. Try a little warmth and you might get some back. Perhaps you arguments aren't as good as you think they are? Why not show me a few where you've defeated someone in a head to head debate?
I think you draw the negativity by spreading negativity. It's how life works bru. Spread the love and you get some back.
Peace,
Eric

Gratuitous homily and personal attack! You have yet to contribute anything on topic.

Jamie, Don't flatter yourself. You do not not concede a point easily even when you've been shown to be faulty in your opinion, however it's noted that you've changed though you run away change your view and then return with a new trick. It's just not honest Jamie. It's going to eventually catch up with you. Maybe not in my lifetime, but you can hide nicely on this forum but if you spent more time in the debate forum going head to head with some of the people you received a dunking from then I think you'd be getting somewhere and be scoring some of those points you speak of.

Yet more, endless unsubstantiated assertions and broad generalizations and STILL no contribution to the actual debate!

Your quote is much to simplistic. Not at all adequate to a serious discussion about this. I've done this before Jamie and so have you. Perhaps if you were less dismissive and less like those you criticize you'd find that people don't have to babysit your point of view the way that robrecht has patiently done and for which you showed him no respect. Shame on you.

Yes it is the basis for serious discussion, certainly anything more than you’ve contributed.

Supernatural claims cannot be examined using Historical/Critical methodology. This was the crux of the discussion with robrecht , which he understood even though you clearly do not. And this is the position of ALL historians including the majority of biblical scholars (with the exception of Apologist scholars).

This was recognized by Raymond E Brown in the following quote: “most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate”.

‘robrecht’ agreed with this as you would know if you had actually read the debate.

Please present YOUR translation and commentary of the passage you are referring to?

The source of the quote (i.e. Raymond E Brown’s ‘The Death of the Messiah’) IS in English you fool. And as for commentary, the passage stands on its own re the point I was making.

See above!

I cannot vouch for robrecht's position having not yet seen anything substantive from either of you.

Then you haven’t been looking. ‘robrecht’ agreed with Raymond E Brown, as do I.

Both of us have contributed considerably more than you have. All you’ve contributed are generalizations, bald assertions and whining.

Jamie, I am not huffing or puffing. Are you continuing the same line of preconceptions that you have with robrecht? It won't work on me either. Preconceptions do not serve one well in DAD. (discussions, argument or debate)

What presuppositions, Eric? Typically, you don’t specify. The only presupposition is that Jesus was a supernatural god/man. But that’s not my presupposition.

Jamie,
The mistake you make is issuing orders to me and they are also based on further preconceptions. I am an avid reader. Schweitzer is interesting to me. Do not spoil that for me. I read the opening to Bart's book and see that it is not for scholars. I've listened to Gerd and don't find him very useful in the way he interprets scripture. It's not good. I'll give it a breeze but truly Jamie, YOU need to present me with YOUR OWN substantive support for your one line claim. Stop dodging!

I need not present you with anything, Eric. What part of: “I will certainly not be caught-up in debating cherry-picked isolated points” did you not understand.

You have missed entire point of the discussion! It centered on the Historical/Critical Method, its implications re supernatural claims, particularly Jesus’ claim that he will return imminently after his death to set up his kingdom which is a supernatural claim. It was whether this last could be examined by Historical methodology which was in dispute.

Jamie, This sort of comment is not appreciated. You are taking the same line of argument that you did with robrecht and it is not going to work on me. Cut it and attend to the task at hand. I am not interested in scoring points. I did not contribute because I chose not to. We are busy here and now and you have made a claim that you have not substantiated. You have dodged your little heart away Jamie, it's time to either put your argument out here for your readers or run away and do what you've done in the past.

Grand Inquisitor (now there's a great title for you) of Christians.

Your comment is duly noted now man up and present a substantive argument of your own and stop playing silly buggers.

Peace,
Eric.

And neither is your heavy-handed attempt at ridicule. Your Post #3358 was nothing but an attempt at point-scoring with nary a contribution from you other than mockery and whining. And my “little heart” has not been dodging, as you would know if you had understood the discussion.

Jamie,

You psychologist are such a sensitive bunch.

This is all good and well. The only problem with all three of these men you source study the Bible with their own preconceptions about Jesus. I've read most of Schweitzer and it was engaging to a point, I'm not going to put a book by a scholar for non-scholars (Bart's book) high on my list of priorities. Though I've read a bit and it is engaging on some level, I need something that's a bit more meaty to turn me on. I'm inundated with books and studies of my own to waste it on model B or C pedigree scholarship. I've listened to Gerd in debate and found myself nodding my head too much and wondering how he arrives at his conclusions about certain texts. It's not interesting to listen to someone who has such liberal view that it spoils proper interpretation of texts. It's yucky!

NB: This is not about Bart, Albert or Gerd - It is about YOUR CLAIM JAMIE and the fact that you have not yet presented YOUR substantive defense of it.

Cut the theatrics, Eric.

It is NOT about my view; it is about the considered views of a number of expert scholars, whom you dismissively refer to as “Bart, Albert or Gerd”. There are others.

The common factor is that they ALL practice the Historical/Critical Method - as do ALL historians - whereby a supernatural explanation for ANY alleged unusual occurrence, whether it involved Caesar, Alexander or Jesus, is the least probable explanation. ANY natural explanation, no matter how unlikely is more probable than a supernatural one. The reason is that there is NO verified evidence of the supernatural even existing – let alone gods, demons and angels etc

The only exceptions, throughout the entire world of historical scholarship, are the Apologist scholars, who begin with the stated preconception that the bible is inerrant and thereafter indulge in special pleading. In short, the scholars with preconceptions YOU source.

[headheart]

Resist the urge to feed the _ _ _ _ _ and it'll simply disappear like morning mist.

Dude, yo. I wish . . .

I'm trying dude, I'm trying but I can't resist the urge to dunk a rusky or two.

John 4 NIV =

“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

< esp. for "bertaberts" who I see is still clinging to the hope that Tassman/Jamie will man up and actually present a substantive argument in support of "his" claim.

Let's take a little ride on the history-wagon through this thread:

Post 1454 : Tassman/Jamie replies to Rational Gaze
Post 1455 : Tassman/Jamie replies to Rational Gaze
Post 1508 : Hamster replies to Vansmack51
Sidebar of tasty Infidelity = Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (ca. 1922) by Marshall J. Gauvin
Post 1510 : Rational Gaze Replies to Vansmack51

Details:
1. Post 3 = June 9th 2011, 11:12 AM ( Rational Gaze's 1st reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )
2. Post 12 = June 9th 2011, 01:34 PM ( Rational Gaze's 2nd reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )
3. Post 16 = June 9th 2011, 02:36 PM ( Rational Gaze's 3rd reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )

Not to forget GlennP's first words in Post 2: "Is this the point where I too do an enormous cut and paste job, duplicating the well known responses to these claims? Seriously, this needs to be updated."

Post 1512 : Doug Shaver replies to Vansmack51
Post 1515 : Tassman/Jamie replies to An Astute Gentleman
Post 1532 : Rational Gaze replies to Vansmack 51
Post 1535 : MaxVel to Tassman/Jamie
Post 1538 : Xru responds to MaxVel
Post 1543 : Xru responds to Tassman
Post 1544 : Xru responds to Tassman

Darling boy Jamie, either you man up and present a substantive argument in support of you "little" claim or watch you tube videos, but it's time for the home team to smoke a BIG CIGAR.

Dig Deeper Jamie, much deeper!.jpg

"Ooops I meant, "Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet"

If you listen you can hear the wind whistling through town and the tumbleweed rolling by and at night when the stars are out you can hear the crickets chirping.

Bye, bye baby bye-bye
Eric.

[Tassman]

I'm trying dude, I'm trying but I can't resist the urge to dunk a rusky or two.

John 4 NIV = < esp. for "bertaberts" who I see is still clinging to the hope that Tassman/Jamie will man up and actually present a substantive argument in support of "his" claim.

Let's take a little ride on the history-wagon through this thread:

Post 1454 : Tassman/Jamie replies to Rational Gaze
Post 1455 : Tassman/Jamie replies to Rational Gaze
Post 1508 : Hamster replies to Vansmack51
Sidebar of tasty Infidelity = Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (ca. 1922) by Marshall J. Gauvin
Post 1510 : Rational Gaze Replies to Vansmack51

Details:
1. Post 3 = June 9th 2011, 11:12 AM ( Rational Gaze's 1st reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )
2. Post 12 = June 9th 2011, 01:34 PM ( Rational Gaze's 2nd reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )
3. Post 16 = June 9th 2011, 02:36 PM ( Rational Gaze's 3rd reply to the OP by "bertaberts" )

Not to forget GlennP's first words in Post 2: "Is this the point where I too do an enormous cut and paste job, duplicating the well known responses to these claims? Seriously, this needs to be updated."

Post 1512 : Doug Shaver replies to Vansmack51
Post 1515 : Tassman/Jamie replies to An Astute Gentleman
Post 1532 : Rational Gaze replies to Vansmack 51
Post 1535 : MaxVel to Tassman/Jamie
Post 1538 : Xru responds to MaxVel
Post 1543 : Xru responds to Tassman
Post 1544 : Xru responds to Tassman

Darling boy Jamie, either you man up and present a substantive argument in support of you "little" claim or watch you tube videos, but it's time for the home team to smoke a BIG CIGAR.

Dig Deeper Jamie, much deeper!.jpg

"Ooops I meant, "Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet"

If you listen you can hear the wind whistling through town and the tumbleweed rolling by and at night when the stars are out you can hear the crickets chirping.

Bye, bye baby bye-bye
Eric.

Well! That’s me dealt with!

Now how about contributing to the actual discussion? All you have done is carp.

[headheart]

Oops, I was mistaken. I really thought (not) that Jamie would man up and present a substantive argument in defense of his "little" one liner (not) My last two replies were for poor "little" bertaberts who really thought that Tassman/Jamie would man up.

Now you've seen it for yourself folks, there ain't nothing going on here but the sound of crickets and tumbleweed.



'Black gold fever my Mama said'll leave you black and cold and dead' (Daniel Amos)

No more food for trolls. It's time to close this thread GlennP. :)

[headheart]

btw. Tassman/Jamie's "little" second claim that Jesus was a failed messianic prophet followed by the oops I err mean < it's okay Tassman/Jamie we know what you "I err mean" Isaiah was on your mind cause there's certainly enough in that book to get you erring away like crazy. However your "little" first claim that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet might have worked if you'd been thinking about the right profit, oops I mean err err err err err man prophet who'd have told you that you got the wrong profit err Tassman/Jamie it's not the guy who begins with "I" but another one though he sure is a very interesting one to read. Now if you wanna be a true scholar then I suggest you get your "little" old self to read some of the minor prophets and accompany that with some "real" scholars who can actually do Bible study. "Kay?" No, no, no Tassman/Jamie ya ain't getting no clues from me. You gone dug yourself a might big old gold mine of nothing and well you know that I ain't gonna get myself falling down into no gold diggers fool gold mine.
Now if you got a (no you ain't) then (no you won't) so I guess it's farewell to ya cranky old t-webber and hopefully (nope) you (nope) It just ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Good bye.
Eric



"Black Gold Fever" by Daniel Amos

[Tassman]

btw. Tassman/Jamie's "little" second claim that Jesus was a failed messianic prophet followed by the oops I err mean < it's okay Tassman/Jamie we know what you "I err mean" Isaiah was on your mind cause there's certainly enough in that book to get you erring away like crazy. However your "little" first claim that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet might have worked if you'd been thinking about the right profit, oops I mean err err err err err man prophet who'd have told you that you got the wrong profit err Tassman/Jamie it's not the guy who begins with "I" but another one though he sure is a very interesting one to read. Now if you wanna be a true scholar then I suggest you get your "little" old self to read some of the minor prophets and accompany that with some "real" scholars who can actually do Bible study. "Kay?" No, no, no Tassman/Jamie ya ain't getting no clues from me. You gone dug yourself a might big old gold mine of nothing and well you know that I ain't gonna get myself falling down into no gold diggers fool gold mine.
Now if you got a (no you ain't) then (no you won't) so I guess it's farewell to ya cranky old t-webber and hopefully (nope) you (nope) It just ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Good bye.
Eric



"Black Gold Fever" by Daniel Amos

You do your cause no good with your mockery and cloddish ridicule. It merely highlights your inability to respond with counter arguments.

There are nearly as many scholarly views of the historical Jesus outside the orthodox tradition as there are scholars. This alone indicates that the Jesus tradition is not as historically certain as many Christians like to think.

The view I am arguing extends back to Albert Schweitzer c1900 in ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ but best presented for the layman by Dr Bart Ehrman in his book ‘Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’

Ehrman is not arguing theology, but taking the documentary approach of a true historian minus theological speculation and theory – unlike the Apologist scholars. And the historical view presented is increasingly espoused by (non-apologist) biblical scholars, namely that Jesus is best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom of peace and justice would be created on earth under the rule of a benevolent god. This was the all-pervasive belief of his followers as found in the scriptures.

The fact is that Jesus did not fulfill this expectation and in this sense he was a failed apocalyptic prophet, which is my argument.