Originally posted by helpmespockThe only sad part of my life is wasting my time pointing out to losers that their beliefs are baloney.
My sister is a devout Catholic and spends much of her time in service to the poor. she travels to south America several times a year and provides food and medical care. She has a very large group she goes with and they are some of the happiest most fulfilled people I know.they spend there lives helping others build their community. Helping and caring for others...this would be wasting time to you huh? You must be a very sad man.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseUnless you can pull some rabbit out of your hat, this is a preposterous assumption...
Sorry Dave, I'll have to side with LH, this is hardly an ironclad case you are making here...
lol. Do you really believe that? Preposterous? I see. Yet, you are willing to accept wholesale the virgin birth - miracle ministry - death - resurrection - ascension routine as entirely probable, let alone as 'gospel' truth. I suggest you give your head a shake.
Originally posted by David CTo say that Jesus of Nazareth simply never existed as a person is preposterous, yes - the rest of your strawman post notwithstanding.
[b]Unless you can pull some rabbit out of your hat, this is a preposterous assumption...
lol. Do you really believe that? Preposterous? I see. Yet, you are willing to accept wholesale the virgin birth - miracle ministry - death - resurrection - ascension routine as entirely probable, let alone as 'gospel' truth. I suggest you give your head a shake.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, hammy, it is not. You have nothing but your 'gospels' that ever recount anything about 'Jesus of Nazareth'. None of the extra-biblical accounts are trustworthy. There were plenty of 'Jesii' in the region, and as you have conceded in another thread, the mythical Jesus of your bible may likely be an amalgamation of many preaching Yeshuas that existed in Palestine at that point in time.
To say that Jesus of Nazareth simply never existed as a person is preposterous, yes - the rest of your strawman post notwithstanding.
Originally posted by David CActually, there are the canonical Gospels and the apocryphal ones. Not to mention the epistles (canonical and otherwise). So, quite a lot of documents from the era talking about Jesus of Nazareth.
No, hammy, it is not. You have nothing but your 'gospels' that ever recount anything about 'Jesus of Nazareth'. None of the extra-biblical accounts are trustworthy. There were plenty of 'Jesii' in the region, and as you have conceded in another thread, the mythical Jesus of your bible may likely be an amalgamation of many preaching Yeshuas that existed in Palestine at that point in time.
How many documents can you find about the historical Socrates? Does that make you doubt his very existence?
My comment about the amalgamated Jesus was that it was a far more reasonable position to take than the one you're taking (i.e. no Jesus "seed" around which the miracles grew; Jesus as a deliberate fictional creation from Egyptian myths).