fett on 12/2/2006 at 03:27
Quote:
And is it really wise of you to refer to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" when it's probable that he never even came from Nazareth?
Yes, it is wise, and it's correct. Please don't embarass yourself by quoting ad hoc pseudo-archaelogical arguments from the absence of first century references to Nazareth. That argument is not only inconsistent with historic research, it betrays a complete ignorance of the process by which archaeology and history is studied and conclusions drawn. I'm proud of you that read a book from Amazon.com, but you need to bring a bigger gun - and I don't think this is a hill you want to die on.
Have you ever
actually compared the evidence for the existence of Shakespeare with the evidence for Jesus? Bitching about christians over a latte at Barnes and Noble doesn't count. Have you
actually done the work? Obviously not or you wouldn't make such juvenille assumptions.
Either way - fuck it, I'm not getting into this again here. It always ends in a yelling match with the biggest dickhead winning and no one actually learning anything. Enjoy your preconceptions.
Gingerbread Man on 12/2/2006 at 03:39
I heard Jesus was a Roman.
Agent Monkeysee on 12/2/2006 at 03:42
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
I heard Jesus was a Roman.
That's a common misconception. He was actually a ramblin' man.
Also televangelists are a really bad example as there's a good case for peddling fradulent wares for at least some of them. But if anyone genuinely believes in the veracity of Jesus Christ it's a catholic priest. The italian case only had merit if the priest was actually professing, and selling, claims that he knew to be false. That's a pretty ridiculous charge to level at a church.
Gingerbread Man on 12/2/2006 at 03:51
And right there is a logical nightmare... How can you possibly prove that someone doesn't believe in something? It's easier to prove (or rather, demonstrate) that someone does believe in something, and that would have been an interesting Law and Order moment.
District Attorney: "Your Honour, the People would like to call Jehova, Lord of Creation, to the stand"
Defendant: "OH FUCK. I WANT TO DROP THE CHARGES."
District Attorney: "Gotcha!"
Defendant: :grr:
Taffer36 on 13/2/2006 at 03:23
I didn't learn anything about jesus in this thread.
In fact, I think my IQ just dropped...
But seriously, what was the point of showing that article?
Renzatic on 13/2/2006 at 03:25
Yeah? Well my IQ dropped just by reading your...your...po...pos...po....DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Taffer36 on 13/2/2006 at 03:31
Allow me to explain. Here we go...
What's the point of constantly showing things about how there are arguments over religion versus not religion? Wow! You mean people are still arguing about religion? There are still lawsuits? OMFG!!! Thanks for giving us a much needed update on the situation!
aguywhoplaysthief on 13/2/2006 at 03:59
Quote Posted by Taffer36
Allow me to explain. Here we go...
What's the point of constantly showing things about how there are arguments over religion versus not religion? Wow! You mean people are still arguing about religion?
Also, war, politics, art, morality, philosophy, and every other interesting subject.
Nicker on 13/2/2006 at 07:25
Quote Posted by fett
No, by this I mean, I've discussed this at least 150 times on these forums, I teach Middle-Eastern history for a living, and you're an idiot if you think Jesus of Nazareth never actually lived. If you've got an axe to grind with the Pope, Bob Tilton, or Ned Flanders, you're time would be more wisely spent punching holes in Creationism or the Social Gospel issue. This subject is ridiculous.:rolleyes:
Who could have guessed "You're obviously a fucking idiot." could mean so much.
