A Further Comment on Poking Holes in My Case ;-)
Presenting a theory for the origin of a cultic movement is an important part of what each side must do in this debate. Extremely important. So present a theory of how the Jesus cult originated if Jesus was not a historical person. Give details. Provide the evidence. My theory has more evidence for it and can explain the data better than the alternatives. That's my claim, even if someone can poke some occasional holes through my theory. The fact that there are unexplained holes in any theory does not make that theory wrong unless a competing theory has fewer holes in it with more evidence for it. My view of Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet is the one adopted by the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed scholars who write on the issue, and for good reason.
If Benny Hinn lived before the rise of TV and newspapers then someone could deny his existence too, just because people claimed he did miracles. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are important distinctions to be made which many skeptics do not make.
And if one wished to deny textual evidence unless independently confirmed then you might as well deny the existence of Paul too, and Peter, and John, and perhaps Papias, and... At some point you lose credibility in your attempt to discredit Christianity.
My friend Robert M. Price is coming out with a book denying that Paul wrote any of the letters attributed to him. What then becomes of the existence of Paul? And where does it stop?
This is being reckless with the standards of history.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
UGG Boots Not Just For Winter UGG 1850 boots grey sale When inside the pursuit of style Appearance, cozy can be the main condition! I think the fact that uggs traditional boots purchase can be the best assortment on this chilly winter. It will usually accompany you and cozy your existence on just about every step. ? UGG Classic Boots can really be cuffed merely a tiny as well as a whole lot to adjust the height in the boot and also to create a enjoyment sheepskin fringe start looking near to the best in the shaft. The tall boots are usually put on with possibly "skinny" jeans or tights which could be tucked inside the boot for that most trendy look. ? The ugg Australia brand determine was founded 30 many years ago by an intrepid Australian surfer and his bag of Ugg Boots. In celebration with this occasion, we are proud to introduce this Ugg limited Edition boot. It is handcrafted traditionally from plush Grade-A sheepskin and features an iconic braid pattern produced exclusively for our 30th Anniversary Collection. A molded rubber outsole provides traction. Every boot is individually numbered to ensure authenticity ? This trendy Nightfall boot is planned of double-faced sheepskin as well as a durable molded rubber outsole. The performance of artificial ribbons near to adds a touch of style with wooden beads on the end. Just one sheepskin removable and replaceable provides additional comfort and warmth. ? Uggs on collection outlet Australia UGG Boots Nightfall Chestnut a trip to New Zealand in which a tremendous amount of sheep and several main organically grown grassland. The boots designed from sheepskin, is cozy and welcoming as other provides boots. Except local community, Suffers and aggressive swimmers also arranged on UGG boots British to retain swimming subsequent suffering and warm. UGG sienna miller boots 5816 chocolate sale Ugg Boots are also sometimes called Uggs. It has tanned outer surface with a synthetic sole. It is said to be originated in New Zealand or Australia but exact date is not known. It is made fro sheep skin and they are also sometimes called as unisex sheepskin boots. It is also helpful in keeping the feet warm. There are in a variety of colors and pull-on and lace-up varieties. The favorite of mine is lace-up Ugg Boots. They are the best according to me. It feels very comfortable wearing lace-up Ugg Boots. Both Australia and New Zealand claim its origin. The insulation properties of sheepskin gives thermostatic properties to the boots. There has been trade mark disputes in several countries. The term "ugg" has been removed in Australia. As it is produced from animal skin there are several criticism by the animal liberation movement. In 2000, the group called for the boycott of Ugg Boots. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the UGG trademark in more than 100 countries. In 1960s, ugg boots became popular among competitive surfers. Surfer Brian Smith started selling Ugg Boots in the United States through the company Ugg Holding, Inc. The maintenance of Ugg Boots can be done through a wire or brush. It will prevent dust from settling among the fibers and reduce the damage. It should not be put in washing machine or cleaned with hot water as it can damage the boots. Ugg Boots are available in different colors and designs. The sole of the boots are made from rubber. It comes in pink, blue, chestnut ..etc colors. There are also some synthetic boots available at the lower price. The celebrity actress Pamela Anderson stopped using as soon as she came to know that it is made from the animal skin and appeals other not to use it. It has become a style statement to use Ugg Boots. I also like it wearing in winters as it keeps my feet warm from the cold. UGG 1850 boots grey sale
Shoes and in particular flat or low heeled boot shoes can be worn in any kind of event or occasion. This can either be when attending official or casual events. To top up on the good news is that boots shoes are not just for particular people but can be worn by anyone. When selecting boots shoes you will never run out of selection to choose from since you have the option of selecting from numerous designs either made out of suede or leather. You also get to choose from a variety of beautiful colors ranging from brown to black. You can do comfortably do away with all the old unfashionable pair of boots and get yourself this stylish boots shoes and comfortably wear them in any occasion. As earlier stated there are various types you can select from. These would include the lace up front flat ankle, solid slouch flat high and print flat snow knee boots shoes. This is just a few of the numerous designs available for you. It was mentioned before that this boots shoes can be worn to any event and even depending on a particular season all you have to do is select the most suitable one. A good example of this is the print flat snow knee Luxe Fame Tall Sand Boots that are specifically suitable for the snowy season. This is because they have been to withstand the extreme conditions that come as a result of cold weather. A good example of this is snow. You can comfortably wear them even when taking part in winter sports or any activities you may take part in during this time. These snow knee boots shoes have been made out of very tough material which makes them long lasting and the same time quite comfortable and warm. There design as ranked this shoes as one of the most popular shoes among ladies. Therefore all you have to do in order to get that fashionable and classy look is getting yourself this boots and matching them up well with your outfit. You will always walk around henceforth with a renewed sense of style and confidence. The material used to make this boots not only makes them durable and comfortable to wear as earlier stated but also allows your feet to get good ventilation. This keeps the feet comfortable and stylish.
Luxe Bedouin Short Boots
The conventional sheepskin boot has long been very popular more than recent years and brands like Australia Luxe Collective Nordic Angel Tall Fox Fur Boots Apricot have produced the boot a fashion staple. But there's a brand name new child near to the obstruct that goes through the name of UGG, and it might be considered a decent time to sit up and hold find out of them.
UGG boots are equally adopt the sheepskin lining that keeps the wearer's ft cozy in winter and seemingly awesome in summer. So you can have style and warmth at the same time, however, fashion fans are permanently asking which brand name they must buy; the well-known Australia Luxe Boots or the awesome UGG boots? If you want to check out the sheepskin feel, then you have to take one pair of this brand boots.
If it is on-trend fashion and design you are searching for, equally brands cater for this perfectly. With funky color options and attention to detail, you unquestionably will not be disappointed with either UGG or UGG boots. But there must be considered a little something that sets them apart, so what is it?
Occasionally there will be the limited edition boots too, plus they are spectacularly tough to get hold of, whether you want the Australia Luxe Collective Nordic Angel Light Tall Fox Fur Boots Chestnut or UGG versions. It's vital that you remember that equally brands are in need and worth having, as well as some males and ladies will not be capable to inform the variation among the two. within a nutshell - if you like to maintain on best of trends and you are an early adopter using the product lifecycle, then UGG is for you. For all those that want a brand name that started out the fashion craze and persists to hold its own using the sheepskin boot market, you cannot go incorrect with UGG boots.
If you are ready to buy something different items in this UGG brand, then you really should visit this website www.auggbootoutlet.com so that you can get what you want in this brand so that you can match your style and keep you fashion-looking all the time. You can get here.
Correction: wash sponge quick oakley gascan play our role is to facilitate rich, cheap oakleys delicate bubbles, bubble full oakleys sunglasses access to the skin, discount oakley sunglasses , rising to the pores in the dirt cheap ray ban sunglasses Wash your face, avoid rubbing the skin, oakley frogskins sunglasses otherwise it will irritate the skin, oakley Holbrook sunglasses leading to excess oil secretion. Oakley Juliet Sunglasses The right approach: you want Oakley Scalpel to thoroughly clean the stains Oakley Flak Jacket left inside the pores, Ray Ban Wayfarers with the cleansing products, Ray Ban Aviators while circular motion while gently pressing,
Have you read the book The Jesus Mysteries? Another theory has been presented for the origins of the cult figure Jesus. That is that the rise of Christianity began with Gnosticism, and Gnosticism has it's roots in Pagan traditions of a dying and resurrecting god -man. In Eygpt, his name was Osiris, in Greece Dionysis, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. These are essentially the same figure as Jesus Christ, though told as myth.
It was the Gnostic point of view that Jesus Christ was not a literal man, and it may be the Gnosticism predates orthodox Christianity. Paul may have been a Gnostic himself (if we discredit his later letters as forgeries and look only to the letters which scholars definitively attribute to Paul. This belief system does not not necessitate the existence of a historical god-man, Jesus the Christ. There's no reason to believe that he ever truly existed.
John W. Loftus claims for some reason that it is important in this debate to present "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". This is actually false. The debate is whether Jesus was a historical figure or not. Such as theory as Loftus would like is a separate issue which he would like to link to the central topic in order to have an opposing position he can attack. This is not helpful in understanding whether Jesus existed or not. This latter requires evidence to support it and so far Loftus is empty-handed on the subject. Few deny that there were believers in a religion centered on Jesus at least from the time of the proselytizing efforts of the apostle Paul. The gospels were all written after the time of Paul and have nothing to suggest their historicity, so we must start with Paul. What evidence is there that there was a religion before he started his proselytizing efforts? Unfortunately, Paul doesn't give much scope for a Jesus-centered religion before his time as he claims that he derived his gospel from a revelation, and specifically not from other people.
Loftus of course can derive from my comments here "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". If he does, he should know that it is not being sold as definitive, but as one alternate means of dealing with the data. One needn't commit to one side or the other in this debate, for I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take a side.
When presenting a case that Jesus did not exist it is not a complete case until or unless one tells us how the Jesus movement started. If you say you just don't know, then that non-answer must be taken into account by someone who is assessing the whole case. He must compare that non-answer to the alternative view, my view. Now you're agnostic about the whole issue so you can get by saying you don't know. But others who do take a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began, if they can.
Besides, being skeptical of the past is easy, isn't it? Anyone can do it. Just say "I don't know," and then pick apart all of the arguments by showing they don't prove their case. What standard of proof you're looking for needs to be explained and justified and shown to be consistent across the board for examining any historical claim. I don't think you would never make a good historian. A historian must make a claim based on the available evidence he has at his disposal, otherwise the number of pages in his book will be extremely small.
You are having difficulties understanding the simple problem here. I want to see some evidence that Jesus existed. You claim that he did. Demonstrate it. You are acting like a lawyer who has no case, so wants to destroy the case of his opponent to give the impression that he has something to say. This is not a useful approach. You make a claim: you defend it. I can wait until you do and tell you while waiting that you have failed to do your job. You are here making claims. That requires, umm, evidence.
If I make the claim that everything in the universe is shrinking and you say prove it, would you accept a response that you've got no reason to doubt my position is sufficient? I should hope not. A substantive case asks for proof. You seem to suffer from a permanent case of burden shifting.
Where is your evidence that Jesus existed? It is not sufficient to ask how else could christianity have started? I have already provided a functional and more economical alternative based on textual evidence to kick-start you in providing evidence for your own position. You continue not to be forthcoming. You continue to tell me that someone who takes "a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began". You are derailing the subject. The question is not how christianity began, but if Jesus existed. If you cannot see your own problem, then you should seek help.
You need to know that I am well aware of the process of doing history, but unlike you I get my hands dirty with evidence. I consult and cite texts. I tend to use primary sources much more than the people I discuss issues with. A case is made on evidence. If your evidence can be picked apart in a reasoned manner, you haven't done the job. You are left making outlandish claims like "I don't think you would never make a good historian." I think you should read some of the more recent histories. They tend to proffer lots of evidence. I can't get any out of you. I fear you don't understand what is necessary.
In my final argument that I posted below you admitted Paul believed Jesus was a real person because Paul believed Jesus was crucified. That's where I said there is nothing left to say to you, because there is nothing much more I can say to you. The case is now closed with you.
Just tell me how you arrived at this conclusion, okay? What evidence is there for this belief of yours, i.e., that Paul believed Jesus was a real person? You do it on the basis of textual evidence, just like me. For you to go on to deny Paul's claim is being reckless with the textual evidence. Who better than Paul to tell us what was the case? If you can deny Paul's testimony to a non-miraculous claim about the original cult leader then you can deny anything. As I meant to say, I don't think you would ever make a good historian.
But just in case I'm wrong about you what kind of evidence are you looking for? If you're looking for a coin with an image on it that says "This is Jesus and yes spin, he was a real person," then that is simply an unreasonable request. In fact, if one can discount textual evidence as easily as you do then only a very rare number of people in the past could be demonstrated to have existed by historians. And even if we found a coin like that you could deny the text engraved upon it just like you deny what Paul said. Again, that's being reckless with history. You would never make a good historian.
This was what I said:
> I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person
> somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be
> meaningless to him. However what he believed doesn't
> necessarily reflect reality, does it? He didn't know a real
> Jesus, so he didn't need one to believe he was real, and
> this was true for his communities who only received Jesus
> from him.
You locked onto the first two sentences and ignored the rest. Not a wise approach to complex issues. Did you note the point about what one believes and what is are not necessarily the same thing? I don't know how to make this clear to you than to say that a belief need not reflect reality. Paul believed that there was a Jesus. Does that belief mean that it was a reality? Doh! You seem to be terribly confused.
As to the fact that their is nothing much more you can say to me, that's too bad, because you've said nothing to your claim that Jesus existed.
The source for my understanding of Paul's belief that Jesus was real comes from 1 Cor 15:12-19. The parallel is between Jesus and anyone else who died. He is arguing against the notion that those who died in christ have perished: if Jesus was not resurrected then no-one can be and Paul and his communities are of all peoples most to be pitied. Jesus was real to Paul, otherwise resurrection wouldn't work.
You then try to argue against my analysis that because Paul had no contact with a real live Jesus, so didn't need one to believe that there was one. You claim that my understanding is reckless with the textual evidence, even though my understanding is strictly base don that evidence. Paul had no direct knowledge of a Jesus and neither did any of his converts and neither did any of the converts of his converts and so on. Is it so hard for you to understand that Paul didn't need a real Jesus to believe that Jesus was real?
What you still cannot fathom is that you are trying to extract history from a collection of traditions without showing any criteria for doing so. I am shocked at your persistent refusal to do the job you claim to to be here for. Your task is functionally like that of a prosecution lawyer. You have to present a substantive case with an array of evidence to bring about your conviction. Instead you sit back in your chair and twiddle your thumbs, waiting for the other person to say something.
One can present irrefutable evidence for the battle of Kadesh and the subsequent treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians. This evidence is derived from materials found both in Egypt and in Hatti. We even have copies of the treaties from both sides. The evidence can be checked. One can then present evidence based on that treaty relationship and so build up a historical web of interrelated information, starting with something extremely tangible and going with the textual evidence from that point.
However, in the case of christianity, so far we haven't got to first base. No-one has demonstrated any evidence which leads to substantiation of the central underpinnings of christianity. If you don't have a place to start then no history can be reconstructed.
Can you extract history from the Arthurian traditions? Did Arthur exist? Can you extract history from the Robin Hood traditions? Did Robin Hood exist? Can you extract history from the Homer traditions? Did Homer exist?
I have tried to clarify your epistemological problem. You need to have a way to show *how* you know what you claim to know. Your attempts at shifting the burden and your insults are not substitute. The historian must deal with epistemology. Your empty-handed approach to history to me is reckless. While you continue to deny your basic responsibility to demonstrate your case, you invalidate yourself from making meaningful statements about history and historians.
Pick a backpack that is proportional for your outfit.replica christian diorThe Oprah Winfrey show. A huge cheap designer handbags , whilst stylish, ability accumulate an eye out of abode alongside a prim as able-bodied as able sundress.cheap handbags Nonetheless, you charge not cede achievement for style-tiny handbags are adorable, but they ability not advance aggregate you will charge during the day.