The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read





Poll: Your Team?
Poll Options
Your Team?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2014, 10:47 PM   #151
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
Are you capable of debating any of the factual assertions in the article, Cletus?

Prove that to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Quote:
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.[13][33][1][2][16] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[31] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[34][35]
Labron: Buh buh buh, there's a kooky conspiratorial angle to be taken! Fire still can't melt steel!
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:39 AM   #152
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus



Labron: Buh buh buh, there's a kooky conspiratorial angle to be taken! Fire still can't melt steel!
Wow!

Way to avoid any attempt to reckon with any of the factual assertions in the article, Cletus.

I guess you're in "na na na, I can't hear you" mode now.

126 of the most prominent historians of Christ's time and place, and not one of them ever mentioned JC when, by all reasonable accounts, they should have.

How would you explain this fact?

Anticipated response: More deflections and dodge ball.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 05:14 AM   #153
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
Wow!

Way to avoid any attempt to reckon with any of the factual assertions in the article, Cletus.

I guess you're in "na na na, I can't hear you" mode now.

126 of the most prominent historians of Christ's time and place, and not one of them ever mentioned JC when, by all reasonable accounts, they should have.

How would you explain this fact?

Anticipated response: More deflections and dodge ball.
Its all part of the same troofer conspiracy. Discard every chunk of evidence against your premise as part of a conspiracy. Your article mentions Josephus not referencing Christ.

Problem is almost no credible scholars believe that conspiracy theory. Because he did reference Christ. Where you say "Well but the parts where anyone referenced Christ were faked!

Once you head down that road you can claim anyone you want never mentioned Christ. Problem is, to believe you, we have to also forget about the simultaneous explosion of the early church and believe the whole thing blew up around some kind of evolving creative fiction with nobody ever really saying that was the case. A conspiracy unlike the world has ever seen.

Nobody believed your theory back then. Why in the world should we believe your kook theories invented 2,000 years after the fact? Theories dwarfing even the Troofer movement. But what am I saying... The bigger and more implausible the conspiracy, the harder Labrons going to buy in.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 11-17-2014 at 05:17 AM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 07:24 AM   #154
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Its all part of the same troofer conspiracy. Discard every chunk of evidence against your premise as part of a conspiracy. Your article mentions Josephus not referencing Christ.

Problem is almost no credible scholars believe that conspiracy theory. Because he did reference Christ. Where you say "Well but the parts where anyone referenced Christ were faked!

Once you head down that road you can claim anyone you want never mentioned Christ. Problem is, to believe you, we have to also forget about the simultaneous explosion of the early church and believe the whole thing blew up around some kind of evolving creative fiction with nobody ever really saying that was the case. A conspiracy unlike the world has ever seen.

Nobody believed your theory back then. Why in the world should we believe your kook theories invented 2,000 years after the fact? Theories dwarfing even the Troofer movement. But what am I saying... The bigger and more implausible the conspiracy, the harder Labrons going to buy in.
L0L!

Really?

All those historians who lived during JC's time were simply part of some vast, left-wing conspiracy?

You've provided some thigh-slappers during your tenure here on the OM, but this is definitely one of the better ones!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 07:48 AM   #155
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Itís Time to Say it: Creationists Arenít Christians Ė Theyíre a Cult



Quote:
By Allen Clifton

I think by now most who follow my writing know that I am not a fan of creationists. In fact, the more I speak with several of them, the more I think these people are suffering from severe mental illness. Theyíll literally say that all scientific data is ďjust a theoryĒ and that none of it is provable, yet theyíll cling to the ďtruthsĒ inside of the Bible because they view the Bible as some kind of factual history book.

Except none of them were there to see any of it. You know, the same argument they use against a lot of proven scientific facts.

Heck, Iíve had several of them tell me that science is some giant, corporate sponsored conspiracy to keep scientists employed. Seriously, thatís what many of them believe.

The biggest problem Iíve seen with these people is that they simply donít understand what science is. When evolution is mentioned, they donít understand the complicated scientific research thatís gone into the study of evolution to call it a ďscientific fact.Ē When the age of the universe or Earth is talked about, they donít understand the science behind what brought scientists to these findings.

When I attack creationists, they think Iím attacking Christianity Ė which isnít true at all. As most people who follow me know, Iím a Christian. Iíve probably written nearly 100 articles defending my faith.

Because I believe Christianity goes far beyond the Bible. In fact, while I wonít deny that I do believe the Bible does have some basis for facts hidden within its text, I see it more as a guide book for those who might need direction. I donít see the Bible as a word for word factual depiction of history. Thatís ludicrous.

To me creationists arenít Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), theyíre something entirely different. I see them more like a cult than a religion. A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.

See, as a Christian, I believe God and science can co-exist. Why isnít it feasible to believe God created everything to evolve into what it is today? Perhaps God knew the best way to make life was to create something, and then let it shape itself over billions of years.

But the fact is, Christianity is a faith Ė not science. Thatís something creationists fail to understand. Thatís why creationism doesnít belong in a science class, because itís not science.

And while these people might call themselves Christians, and theyíre more than free to do just that, I canít view these people as Christians. I see them as people suffering from some form of mental condition. And while that might sound harsh, itís just the way that I feel.

To really believe that dinosaurs and man walked the Earth together; that a man named Noah built an ark that housed every animal on Earth and lived to be 900 years old; that the science behind the speed of light isnít valid; that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; and the Earth was made in 6, 24 hour days is insane.

But thereís a drastic difference between Christians and creationists. Sure, they might use the same book and even have similar beliefs, but Muslims and Christians also have similar beliefs Ė and most wouldnít say theyíre the same thing.

Itís the same way I feel about creationists. To believe what they believe doesnít require faith, it requires some kind of mental delusion. To deny almost all proven science for the sake of a book thatís been translated over centuries is absurd.

- See more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/t....x4FNVxQF.dpuf
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 08:20 AM   #156
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
L0L!

Really?

All those historians who lived during JC's time were simply part of some vast, left-wing conspiracy?

You've provided some thigh-slappers during your tenure here on the OM, but this is definitely one of the better ones!

Dude, you're probably missing the main point, but the very historian your kook conspiracy article leads off with is widely believed to have referenced Jesus Christ explicitly. Which is why I posted the wikipedia article that said so. Did he do so in every work he wrote? No, of course not. Why would he? The society he represented regarded Jesus as an executed criminal.

You (like the author) can claim that any attribution regarding a historic Jesus is fake. But you're way out on the fringe in that belief. And you're out there using standards that would render a good majority of ancient history a possible work of creative fiction. Which is why I asked if you can prove Socrates existed. Can you?

I've said it before. I'll say it again. You can credibly maintain Christ wasn't who the Church said (or thinks) he is. That's a legitimate debate. But saying he never existed would have required a willful conspiracy on the part of many thousands of people. Many of whom would've died carrying it out. And for what?

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 11-17-2014 at 08:29 AM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 08:30 AM   #157
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Did Socrates exist Labron? Prove it.
Why would that even matter?
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 08:42 AM   #158
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
Why would that even matter?
Uh, because you can't use Labron's standard of evidence without rendering most everything we know pre-printing-press as a huge body of fiction.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 09:23 AM   #159
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Dude, you're probably missing the main point, but the very historian your kook conspiracy article leads off with is widely believed to have referenced Jesus Christ explicitly. Which is why I posted the wikipedia article that said so. Did he do so in every work he wrote? No, of course not. Why would he? The society he represented regarded Jesus as an executed criminal.

You (like the author) can claim that any attribution regarding a historic Jesus is fake. But you're way out on the fringe in that belief. And you're out there using standards that would render a good majority of ancient history a possible work of creative fiction. Which is why I asked if you can prove Socrates existed. Can you?

I've said it before. I'll say it again. You can credibly maintain Christ wasn't who the Church said (or thinks) he is. That's a legitimate debate. But saying he never existed would have required a willful conspiracy on the part of many thousands of people. Many of whom would've died carrying it out. And for what?
126 historians who lived contemporaneously with JC.

Not one of these historians wrote about JC, but should have, given all the miracles JC was said to perform, etc.

You're still avoiding the task of offering an explanation for this.

And your suggestion that denial of a historical JC would require some sort of "conspiracy" makes about as much sense as saying the same about any number of other mythological figures.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 09:31 AM   #160
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
126 historians who lived contemporaneously with JC.
Dude, the first example provided in your article already died on the operating table. Archaeological consensus killed it.


You can cite some kook saying Josephus' references to Christ were forged.

You can also cite some kook saying 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

Contrary to your own personal belief, neither fringe nutball reference establishes anything.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 09:32 AM   #161
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Uh, because you can't use Labron's standard of evidence without rendering most everything we know pre-printing-press as a huge body of fiction.
I assumed there was evidence they both existed, at least as ordinary men. It really doesn't matter if Socrates existed. Nobody's claiming he will save us from our sins. Socrates teachings were his own or somebody else's teachings. That doesn't change anything. It would be a pretty big deal for a lot of people if Jesus didn't exist though.
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 09:38 AM   #162
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
I assumed there was evidence they both existed, at least as ordinary men. It really doesn't matter if Socrates existed. Nobody's claiming he will save us from our sins. Socrates teachings were his own or somebody else's teachings. That doesn't change anything. It would be a pretty big deal for a lot of people if Jesus didn't exist though.
Establishing a standard of evidence where literally most of what we know of the ancient world could no longer be 'known' is the problem.

Saying history didn't happen because documents might've been altered is a recipe for knowing nothing about anything prior to the 15th century.

You might as well say, "I won't believe Jesus lived until I see photographs"

Then I say "Well who else do you have photographs of from that era?"

To which you say, "Doesn't matter, they didn't claim to be the Son of God"

Although to be consistent, most ancient rulers did. Guess all of them didn't exist either.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:29 AM   #163
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Dude, the first example provided in your article already died on the operating table. Archaeological consensus killed it.


You can cite some kook saying Josephus' references to Christ were forged.

You can also cite some kook saying 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

Contrary to your own personal belief, neither fringe nutball reference establishes anything.
I'll take this crazy deflection as a tacit admission of failure to provide an alternate explanation for those 126 historians and their failure to mention JC on your part.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:32 AM   #164
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
I'll take this crazy deflection as a tacit admission of failure to provide an alternate explanation for those 126 historians and their failure to mention JC on your part.
Those historians didn't exist. They're fictional characters. You have no evidence that they existed.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:38 AM   #165
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Establishing a standard of evidence where literally most of what we know of the ancient world could no longer be 'known' is the problem.

Saying history didn't happen because documents might've been altered is a recipe for knowing nothing about anything prior to the 15th century.

You might as well say, "I won't believe Jesus lived until I see photographs"

Then I say "Well who else do you have photographs of from that era?"

To which you say, "Doesn't matter, they didn't claim to be the Son of God"

Although to be consistent, most ancient rulers did. Guess all of them didn't exist either.
Holy crap - talk about a crazy straw man.

We're not talking about altered documents here - we're talking about more than 100 prominent historians who lived and wrote during JC's time and who never wrote word one about a local miracle worker who could turn water into wine, raise the dead, etc.

Clearly, for you to offer an explanation for this fact which supports the idea of a historical JC is too much to ask.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:40 AM   #166
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Those historians didn't exist. They're fictional characters. You have no evidence that they existed.
Um, their written records are the evidence for their existence - unless you want to advance your own conspiracy theory that said records are inauthentic...?

Good luck with that.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:45 AM   #167
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Recapping for Cletus' sake...

Quote:
.Paulkovich consulted no fewer than 126 historians (including Josephus) who lived in the period and ought to have been aware of Jesus if he had existed and performed the miracles that supposedly drew a great deal of popular attention. Of the 126 writers who should have written about Jesus, not a single one did so (if one accepts Paulkovich's view that the Jesus references in Josephus are interpolated).

Paulkovich concludes:

"When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did notóand Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissionsóI must conclude that Christ is a mythical character."


Continued: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ligion-fiction
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:58 AM   #168
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
Holy crap - talk about a crazy straw man.

We're not talking about altered documents here - we're talking about more than 100 prominent historians who lived and wrote during JC's time and who never wrote word one about a local miracle worker who could turn water into wine, raise the dead, etc.

Clearly, for you to offer an explanation for this fact which supports the idea of a historical JC is too much to ask.
Your kook hack author chose to use Josephus as his first example of this lack of any evidence of Christ. Problem is, Josephus is widely held to have written explicitly about Christ as one of the first non-Christian references to Christ. Your kook hack author deals with that consensus essentially by saying it's a conspiratorial forgery. (imagine that)

As for whatever other shred of credibility your kook hack author has left, one of his first commenters dismantled it best...

Quote:
Sorry, but reading this I cannot wish this to be disseminated further.

For a start his list is obviously lifted from some resource that uncatalogued ancient writers. Unbeknown to him though 1/3 of the people he claims to have read through have left no writings that survive. Don't believe me? Google Euphrates of Tyre, Titus, Damis of Hierapolis (etc...) You will see for yourselves. As for the rest, most of their writings are about botany, metaphysics, farming techniques, or were written before Jesus. Quite simply it should never have been published, or be getting attention. It does not help aid the integrity of Free Inquiry or the Council for Secular Humanism.
His whole comment is really worth a read if you want some more perspective on the historicity of Christ. There's little history in pre-Gutenberg western history that's more of a slam dunk. And the commenter makes sure to point out that this evidence does not prove Christianity the religion. Just that there definitely was Christ, the person. If you want to attack Christianity, you should stick with the theology. When you delve into fictionalizing all of history to rewrite Christ out of it, it just comes across as desperate and sad.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:24 AM   #169
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

^

OK, now it's obvious that your comprehension game isn't up to this debate - otherwise you would have noticed the author points out that the references to Christ by Josephus were interpolated.

That means fudged, just in case you were wondering.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:30 AM   #170
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
^

OK, now it's obvious that your comprehension game isn't up to this debate - otherwise you would have noticed the author points out that the references to Christ by Josephus were interpolated.

That means fudged, just in case you were wondering.
Yes, this kook thinks they were fudged. Most scholars disagree. Under Labronian science, though, if I can find one kook to call Global Warming a conspiracy, then it must be!

Why didn't you address the later point made, that your kook hack author is counting 'historians' who supposedly never referenced Jesus, when in fact (by the available record) they never referenced anything. None of their work remains.

Queue Labron: "100% of writers that didn't write anything didn't write about Jesus. Yay, atheism!"

I can see why you're such fertile ground for the Troofer movement.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:54 AM   #171
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yes, this kook thinks they were fudged. Most scholars disagree. Under Labronian science, though, if I can find one kook to call Global Warming a conspiracy, then it must be!

Why didn't you address the later point made, that your kook hack author is counting 'historians' who supposedly never referenced Jesus, when in fact (by the available record) they never referenced anything. None of their work remains.

Queue Labron: "100% of writers that didn't write anything didn't write about Jesus. Yay, atheism!"

I can see why you're such fertile ground for the Troofer movement.
The "scholars" who "disagree" with the evidence that Josephus' references to JC were interpolated are a bunch of snake handling charlatans - not unlike the paid hacks whose global warming denial you gobble up just as readily, no doubt.

And I find it hard to believe that even a slow learner like you would accept the contradictory claim that, of the 126 historians referenced, "none of their work remains." (We just know of their existence thanks to a Ouija Board - L0L.)

Last edited by L.A. BRONCOS FAN; 11-17-2014 at 11:56 AM..
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:56 AM   #172
DAN_BRONCO_FAN
Ring of Famer
 
DAN_BRONCO_FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: why so u can stalk me ?
Posts: 4,363

Adopt-a-Bronco:
alfred e numan
Default

this thread needs more rem
DAN_BRONCO_FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:13 PM   #173
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post



His whole comment is really worth a read if you want some more perspective on the historicity of Christ. There's little history in pre-Gutenberg western history that's more of a slam dunk. And the commenter makes sure to point out that this evidence does not prove Christianity the religion. Just that there definitely was Christ, the person. If you want to attack Christianity, you should stick with the theology. When you delve into fictionalizing all of history to rewrite Christ out of it, it just comes across as desperate and sad.
So the "authority" you wish to cite here is simply some anonymous shmo posting a response to an article he just read on the web?

Oh, Internet Generation! You never fail to crack me up.

And at the risk of interrupting your frantic straw man construction, I'm not interested in attacking Christianity. In fact, once you dispense with the ridiculous literalism and insistence on a historical Jesus, I think the Christ story is a great myth that can serve humanity well (given the right understanding.)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:20 PM   #174
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 86,568
Default

BTW, Cletus neglected to include this paragraph in his Wiki excerpts...

Quote:
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[17] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:12 PM   #175
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,353

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
So the "authority" you wish to cite here is simply some anonymous shmo posting a response to an article he just read on the web?

Oh, Internet Generation! You never fail to crack me up.

And at the risk of interrupting your frantic straw man construction, I'm not interested in attacking Christianity. In fact, once you dispense with the ridiculous literalism and insistence on a historical Jesus, I think the Christ story is a great myth that can serve humanity well (given the right understanding.)
Random blog post claiming to have scoured non-existent works for evidence of references to Christ... A+ source material

Comment on how A+ blog post author fundamentally beclowned himself by claiming he read works that don't exist... automatically suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Quote:
There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][12][nb 6][2]:168-173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.
Bull****! Troofer Labron found a blog post!
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Denver Broncos