View Single Post
Old August 16 2010, 08:10 PM   #136
Vice Admiral
thestrangequark's Avatar
Location: thestrangequark
Re: Things that have Changed Since You were in School

Goliath wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
Exactly. It's debatable whether Jesus really even existed. It's far more likely that he is a conglomeration of different older gods and legends, after all. Jesus isn't as sound a historical figure as many think.

I don't often agree with Christian apologists, but if you will take the trouble to actually read their responses to rubbish like The God Who Wasn't There, you will find that your position has been thoroughly debunked.

Saying that "it's debatable that Jesus ever existed" is like saying "it's debatable that the Holocaust ever happened" or "it's debatable that we went to the Moon." It's tinfoil-hattery.
I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I meant that it is debatable that the Jesus portrayed in the bible ever existed. Most likely there was a man:

Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure.
Who was part of the inspiration for
Jesus Christ, by contrast, is a figure of myth and legend.
I don't think we're actually in disagreement here.

What's more: Jesus Christ is regarded by Christians as a god--one of the three figures of the Christian Trinity--the "dominus" in "anno domini".
By some Christians, yes.

You're trying to separate the religion from the "man," which simply cannot be done. The story of Jesus affected society through religion, and by no other means. That is why it is a matter of semantics.
No. The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are stubbornly persisting in your own error, 'as a dog returns to its vomit.'
There's no need to be so rude. Are you not mature enough to partake in grown-up debate?

In fact--that's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Let's go through that line by line.

Wrong. In fact--the religion didn't even exist when the man was alive. See Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian for some recent scholarship on this subject.
EXACTLY. Which is why trying to separate Jesus from Christianity -- the man whose life started the religion, is utterly ridiculous.

Arguing that "you cannot separate Christianity from Jesus" is like arguing "you cannot separate astronomy from Copernicus" or "you cannot separate physics from Newton."
Now, that's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. The cosmos aren't a religion based on the lives and teachings of Copernicus and Newton!

In fact, you not only can separate these things--you must. Subsequent research has shown that what both Copernicus and Newton said was only approximately true. Their works now possess only historical significance.
This is true, and completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Irrelevant. It is possible to recognize the religious-historical significance of Jesus of Nazareth without believing that he was god.
I'm not disagreeing with you here.

And that is the problem that you are perversely refusing to
recognize. That the terms BC and AD explicitly refer to Jesus, not as a man, but as a god--as Christ, and Lord. "Anno domini" is a contraction of a longer phrase--anno domini nostri iesu christi--"the year of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Um, not really. Calm down.
You know, upon reading the rest of your post I've decided you're not even worth debating with. You make some interesting arguments, but you are nasty and rude. I don't usually give up on debates, as people around here know. But I also don't debate with childish pseudo intellectuals. Bye bye.
The Enterprise is my TARDIS.

View my art!
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote