The Case for Christ

[Logicman]

So, with all your grandstanding and bloviating, you still cannot address what I originally posted about why your claims are specious and laughably dishonest. Typical.

Unlike you, I've read the book and understand why it's so easily debunked.

Here, dig in, you coward. I'm not going to waste time typing all this out.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/04/06/case-and-problem-case-christ

You lack the intellectual horsepower and honesty to even begin to approach that.

Again: what does the bible say about lies and why does that frighten you so? Hint: trick question

LOL! You continue to embarrass yourself. Your pathetic article has ZERO (ZERO) specific examples of any false argument from the book. In fact, for the most part it makes only generalized OPINIONS about the movie instead.

Now be a good little skeptic and get out that book you've claimed to have read and cite a specific example and page #.

 

[RAMOSS]

LOL! You continue to embarrass yourself. Your pathetic article has ZERO (ZERO) specific examples of any false argument from the book. In fact, for the most part it makes only generalized OPINIONS about the movie instead.

Now be a good little skeptic and get out that book you've claimed to have read and cite a specific example and page #.

I note that you seem unwilling and unable to discuss the book on a chapter by chapter basis.. despite several offers to do so. I don't see any evidence that 1) you actually read the case for Christ, or 2) His article.

 

[Logicman]

I note that you seem unwilling and unable to discuss the book on a chapter by chapter basis.. despite several offers to do so. I don't see any evidence that 1) you actually read the case for Christ, or 2) His article.

Wrong.

Just show me ONE (JUST 1) specific example from the book (which I have read and which I have with me) that's false or bogus. Give me your best one - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST ONE EXAMPLE. Make your case and show us the page number that you're referring to.

 

[RAMOSS]

Flush.

Just show me ONE (JUST 1) specific example from the book (which I have read and which I have with me) that's false or bogus. Give me your best one - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST ONE EXAMPLE. Make your case and show us the page number.

Why, the passage about Josephus. It is at the very least corrupted, if not a total insertion ... and that makes it unsuitable for the use of evidence. That is just one thing. Then,there it the pliny the younger one. It's bogus, because we know the source of Pliny's argument.. and that was taking information from the torture of slaves. That is not evidence of a historical Jesus, but rather the evidence of Christians existing in 110 CE. Those are two of them. Then.. the whole thallus bit. We don't have any passages from Thallus, so we don't know what he actually said. We have an account from an apologist ( Julius Africanus ) who said Thallus explained away the darkness as an eclipse. However, we do not actually know what Thallus wrote at all, or if he was even referencing Jesus, since we have zero extant writings of his.


That's for a start.

 

[Logicman]

Why, the passage about Josephus. It is at the very least corrupted, if not a total insertion ....

What page is the argument on, Ramoss? You have the book, right?

p.s. I asked for just ONE and you being a grandstander cited more.

I'll answer that when you show me the page # and what was written. The debate about Josephus is in the book, but you have to show me that what the scholar in question CONCLUDED, was wrong.

 

[RAMOSS]

What page is the argument on, Ramoss? You have the book, right?

p.s. I asked for just ONE and you being a grandstander cited more.

I'll answer that when you show me the page # and what was written.

Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules.

 

[Logicman]

Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules.

So you don't have the book, the page #, or what what the scholar concluded about the Josephus/Jesus passage? You just took a shot in the dark and slapped some names against the wall.

Absolutely brilliant!

 

[RAMOSS]

So you don't have the book, the page #, or what what the scholar concluded about the Josephus/Jesus passage? You just took a shot in the dark and slapped some names against the wall.

Absolutely brilliant!

Well, I will show you all that if you accept the challenge on debating the book, chapter by chapter.. and deconstruct the entire thing. That way, I can see evidence you actually read the thing.

 

[tosca1]

No. Jesus existed......."Christ" is a fictional creation. One must separate the two to understand all this.

Oh boy......

Read the OP - particularly the quote by Tacitus! There will be no CHRISTians if there is no Christ! The term Christians was derived from Christ!

The story referenced is the creation of a fraud called Saul/Paul of Tarsus......a talented and ambitious fraud who cobbled together some old Pagan myths, added them into the many stories about a radical Pharisee rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth, and came up with a new religion that he sold to the Gentiles quite successfully--gaining wealth and power for himself and a Gentile disciple named Luke.

All Christian tradition comes from the imaginative storytelling and writings of these two and their followers.

Most Christians......befuddled and bewitched by romantic stories of supernatural powers--have no idea that their entire religion rests solely on the testimony of these two men.......Saul and Luke--and their Gentile followers.

One man, Saul......actually started the whole charade.

He was in league with the Romans and ended his days in his own home in Rome, still preaching his fantasy.

Read Hyam Maccoby.

His "Mythmaker" on Saul/Paul is a masterpiece........using Jewish writings to destroy the house of cards that Saul/Paul built.

:roll:

You've lapped up a disinformation regarding Christ.......and you expect me to take that seriously?

No, you read the thread on the Bible and refute the evidences given for the Bible!
And rebutt why people like Simon Greenleaf and Lee Strobel (AMONG OTHERS), had been converted by their own investigative findings!

 

[tosca1]

Recap time!!!

The following are the CORROBORATING evidences given for Christ.



1. The Bible

Is the God of the Bible, the Creator?
Is the Bible, reliable? Can we trust the Bible?
Is it truly God-inspired? How do you know it came from God?


The first argument (proof) given is, The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, along with several evidences to support it. (see posts #706, 707)


The second was Mathematical Probability: Order of Creation (post #770)

The third, Mathematical Probability: The Christ Prophecy (#967)

https://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/287320-bible.html



Since the information about Jesus Christ, came from the Bible - the evidences given above for the Bible, will be the very first thing you'll have to refute!



2. Non-Biblical source: Tacitus (OP)


3. Investigative Research and Testimony by ex-atheists:

Lee Strobel (OP) (post #122)
Simon Greenleaf (post #141)

 

[Vox]

Recap time!!!

The following are the CORROBORATING evidences given for Christ.



1. The Bible


https://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/287320-bible.html



Since the information about Jesus Christ, came from the Bible - the evidences given above for the Bible, will be the very first thing you'll have to refute!



2. Non-Biblical source: Tacitus (OP)


3. Investigative Research and Testimony by ex-atheists:

Lee Strobel (OP) (post #122)
Simon Greenleaf (post #141)

Sure.

You like fantasy better than facts, talking snakes rather than reality.

I get it.

This is your right.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

LOL! You continue to embarrass yourself. Your pathetic article has ZERO (ZERO) specific examples of any false argument from the book. In fact, for the most part it makes only generalized OPINIONS about the movie instead.

Yawn. Nice deflection. The book and the movie are part and parcel. The one is the same as the other. I'm not at all surprised you're too frightend to face that fact.

Now be a good little skeptic and get out that book you've claimed to have read and cite a specific example and page #.

Lulz. Why are you still running away from what I posted?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules.

What he's doing is the time-honored delay tactic by demanding longer and more specific information that requires much longer posts that can than simply be dismissed with a 'nun-uh' or some other such trivial reply. No one's falling for it, and it's clear he's never read the book.

 

[Vox]

There will be no CHRISTians if there is no Christ! The term Christians was derived from Christ!

Precisely as the term "Mouseketeers" was derived from the fictional character Mickey Mouse.

See how that works?

:mrgreen:

 

[Vox]

Got any evidence to back up those wild claims?

Sure.

Jewish scholars have always known that the man with two names (the charlatan called Saul/Paul) was a fake.

Information taken from the Talmud and other historical sources from the time of Jesus prove that the writings of Saul/Paul and the victims of his bizarre theology are false.

One example: Jesus was a Pharisee.......Paul was not. Do you enjoy learning?

Read "The Mythmaker" and you will learn many things that Christians never hear about.......because Christians simply are not Talmudic scholars like Maccoby.

But read it only if you dare--because pulling out the phony card called "Saul/Paul" is what causes the total collapse of the Christian house of cards.

 

[tosca1]

Precisely as the term "Mouseketeers" was derived from the fictional character Mickey Mouse.

See how that works?

:mrgreen:

:shock:

Wasn't there a character called Mickey Mouse?
Who are the "Mouseketeers?"


You proved my point! :lol:
The question is: do you even realize that you did?

 

[Cephus]

No more so than the big bang theory.

Which has demonstrable, objective evidence, something that no gods have. But surely you were aware of that, weren't you?

 

[Logicman]

Sure.

Jewish scholars have always known that the man with two names (the charlatan called Saul/Paul) was a fake.

They denied their own Messiah too, so what would they really know?

Here, educate yourself on why the Jews of their day missed their own Messiah:

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

 

[Logicman]

Well, I will show you all that if you accept the challenge on debating the book, chapter by chapter.. and deconstruct the entire thing. That way, I can see evidence you actually read the thing.

If I want to spend hours and days debating someone it won't be someone who is in denial 100% of the time.

 

[Cephus]

Read the OP - particularly the quote by Tacitus! There will be no CHRISTians if there is no Christ! The term Christians was derived from Christ!

It is derived from the BELIEF in Christ. That doesn't mean said belief is factually correct. Don't tell me you never realized that.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Neither one of you theological charlatans could come up with anything specific that was actually in the book. And you both claimed to have read it too.

View attachment 67220606

It's already been offered; clearly you don't understand the term 'strawman' and haven't read the book.

Again: why do you pretend to be a Christian?

 

[Vox]

:shock:

Wasn't there a character called Mickey Mouse?
Who are the "Mouseketeers?"


You proved my point! :lol:
The question is: do you even realize that you did?

No.......actually, you MISSED the point.

Mickey Mouse was a fictional character.......thus precisely like Paul's invented "Christ" character.

 

[Vox]

One could hardly find a more perfect analogy--The Christian Club and the Mickey Mouse Club.

:mrgreen:

 

[Vox]

They denied their own Messiah too, so what would they really know?

Here, educate yourself on why the Jews of their day missed their own Messiah:

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

You don't even understand the concept of the Messiah as it is known to Jews.

Your thinking is apparently irreprably distorted by Christian misinformation.

 

[Vox]

It is derived from the BELIEF in Christ. That doesn't mean said belief is factually correct. Don't tell me you never realized that.

You are correct, but I think I've illustrated this in a way even he can understand with the reference to the Mousketeers.