[JerryLove]

True how ? As written? As you asserted; thqat it was written before the time of Christ? As a Jewish writing talking asbout Jesus? Or just simply as written?

You don't appear to be interacting with the question. I have not asked about weather you believe my asserions regarding it; I've asked (and I quote):

"Do you think the story of Jeshua Ben Pindira is a true story? Or do you believe it's fictional?"

You've referenced a Jewesh text. Do you believe that the contentes of the text are factually accurate? Or do you believe that the contents are factually inaccurate?

This is really a terribly simple question.

[nolidad]

[/QUOTE]"Do you think the story of Jeshua Ben Pindira is a true story? Or do you believe it's fictional?"

You've referenced a Jewesh text. Do you believe that the contentes of the text are factually accurate? Or do you believe that the contents are factually inaccurate?[QUOTE]

Well seeing how you are asking for just a straight up or down vote (yes it is accurate or no it is not) then with what I know of the text, what has been written about the text, and other historical texts surrounding the life of Jesus,I would have to say no.

Now that we have cleared that up:

The viewers of this thread are still waiting for you to produce the evidence as to why you think that Jesus "maybe" a myth.

We also are waiting to see the evidence for your assertion that the New Testament writers were self serving in their writings.

We are awaiting to see the evidence as to why you feel the New Testasment is "dubious".

Also we would like to see evidence as to how the oeriginal disciples could seduce and mass decieve tens of thousands of their fellow Jews iinto converting to Chrisitianity knowing that Jesus was a "myth"--once again remember, by 45 A.D. Just 13-15 years after the mythman "Jesus'" death and resurrection, tens of thousands of Jews knowingly chose to beleive a myth and thus becoime guilty of idoloatry and placed themselves as o utcasts in Israeli life.

As you stated your request was simple (and it was when asked for just a straight yes or no), this request is just as simple. You have made assertions and claims, we are just asking to see the material you used to come up with these assertions and claims. It is simple.

[JerryLove]

As you stated your request was simple (and it was when asked for just a straight yes or no), this request is just as simple. You have made assertions and claims, we are just asking to see the material you used to come up with these assertions and claims.

It is simple, but it is also a straw-man argument. I have not attempted a disproof of Jesus, and have therefore not made any of the positive claims you are asserting (except to point out that the Bible is self-serving testimony, which I have already supported and is, quite frankly, terribly obvious).

Well seeing how you are asking for just a straight up or down vote (yes it is accurate or no it is not) then with what I know of the text, what has been written about the text, and other historical texts surrounding the life of Jesus,I would have to say no.

So then why are you asserting that a factually incorrect storry corroborates the existance of Yeshua Bin Yoseph, when you have just stipulated that it does not.

This seems analogous to using the book "Dracula" to establish the existance of Vlhad Tepis. Can you explain how a [declared] false story can serve to establish an historic truth?

[nolidad]

It is simple, but it is also a straw-man argument. I have not attempted a disproof of Jesus, and have therefore not made any of the positive claims you are asserting (except to point out that the Bible is self-serving testimony, which I have already supported and is, quite frankly, terribly obvious).

Technically of course you are correct, but you have stated that Jesus "could" be just a myth and all we are asking is for you to supply the evidence with which you support this "possibility".

If you have supported that the bible is self serving I missed it-would you pease repost? If it is terribly obvious I just wonder why billions throughout the years haven"t caught on to what you have caught onb to.

So then why are you asserting that a factually incorrect storry corroborates the existance of Yeshua Bin Yoseph, when you have just stipulated that it does not.

Well the way you wanted an answer had a lot to do with that. Do I beleive that the astory contains factual inaccuracies? Yes I do. Do I beleive it is grounded in truth? yes I do. But you wanted a simple yes or no so On that narrow defining you requested I had to say no.

It is just like the over 225 flood account stories in differing cultures are corroborates the truth of what is called "Noahs flood". The opther stories all were generated after the flood and the tower of babel, are filled with inaccuracies, but are based on the truth. Just like the pindira stories. It is based on the truth but has inaccuracies in it.


So why are the apostles self serving??

How could they convert tens of thousands of their countrymen to someone who they would have known was a myth if Jesus was only a ficticious character as you said "maybe"??

[JerryLove]

If you have supported that the bible is self serving I missed it-would you pease repost? If it is terribly obvious I just wonder why billions throughout the years haven"t caught on to what you have caught onb to.

Is there ANYONE, other than Joel/Joel's dad, who does not understand how the gospels served the gospel-writer's desire to spread their beliefs? Is there ANYONE other than these two for whom this is not painfully obvious (weather the Gospels are true or not)?

Well the way you wanted an answer had a lot to do with that. Do I beleive that the astory contains factual inaccuracies? Yes I do. Do I beleive it is grounded in truth?

I wanted to know if it were reliable (in your opinion); and you said that it was not. Let me see if I understand your current claim.

The Gospels are correct. This is supported by the existance of a story which disagrees with the Gospels in most respects, but has some similarity. This unreliable document (which is only true in the spots where it agrees with your presupposed true gospels, which is about nowhere), in it's couple of correct bits, proves that the Gospels are ture... and the gospels prove that the similar bits are true, while also proving the rest untrue.

Is this about it? Can you actually say this with a straight face? It takes a great deal of Moxie for you to stand there and tell me that a document that says the gospels are wrong (assuming it did refer to Yesuah bin Yoseph), prove the Gospel account true.

[Joel]

I wanted to know if it were reliable (in your opinion); and you said that it was not. Let me see if I understand your current claim.

The Gospels are correct. This is supported by the existance of a story which disagrees with the Gospels in most respects, but has some similarity. This unreliable document (which is only true in the spots where it agrees with your presupposed true gospels, which is about nowhere), in it's couple of correct bits, proves that the Gospels are ture... and the gospels prove that the similar bits are true, while also proving the rest untrue.

Is this about it? Can you actually say this with a straight face? It takes a great deal of Moxie for you to stand there and tell me that a document that says the gospels are wrong (assuming it did refer to Yesuah bin Yoseph), prove the Gospel account true.

WOW!! Do you know how to build Mount Everest from a 2 inch pile of sand!!!!!!!

If you are divining all this info you just wrote from some sort of esp power--PLEASE do not try to make a living out of it for you would surely starve!!!! I gave a carefully defined answer and all of a sudden you assume I opened the flood gates!! Wopw talk aboutr a leap of imagination on your part!


But let us see if we have your opinion straight. You don't have enough evidence to decide if Jesus was a real character in history. You don't like the historical record that has been accepted by both skeptic and beleiver alike. Even those who don't accept Jesus as Messiah have no problem accepting him as a real historical character(though a small minority don't we understand this.)

You have offered no counter evidence to support the possibility of Jesus being merely a myth.

You offer no support that the disciples were guilty of a conspiracy.

You say that the gospels are self serving- but offer no counter evidence to show how they are in light of the fact that the apsotles never became rich, were despised by their countrymen and treated as outcasts, hunted by the Gentiles, even their converts caused them a great deal of consternation and grief(just reads the epistles if you doubt that). the writings never promoted themselves but always got the people to focus on Jesus. They never really profited from their becoming religiopus leaders( they left careers that paid more) and died penniless and in shame. Yep that sounds like a recipe for self serving if I ever heard one from first century uneducated Jews.

You say the claims of the gospel are dubious--but offer no counter evidence to support your charge.

In short you offer no evidence other than your own "feelings" to discount the reality of Jesus as a person. Yup that would maske a greatr case in court--Your teachers should be so proud o fhow you presented this case!!!

[JerryLove]

In short you offer no evidence other than your own "feelings" to discount the reality of Jesus as a person.

Has sometihng to do with the fact that I don't carry a burden of proof

In all that rambling you have not answered the question. How does a story which disagrees with your position support your position? How does a story which is wrong [which you've stipulated this one is] prove something right?

[nolidad]

Has sometihng to do with the fact that I don't carry a burden of proof

In all that rambling you have not answered the question. How does a story which disagrees with your position support your position? How does a story which is wrong [which you've stipulated this one is] prove something right?

What are you the only person alive who can make assertions and not have the evidence to support them?????


As far as your statement--read once again what I wrote and maybe you will not grossly misqoute me.

[Joel]

BTW: You do have a burden of proof--when one disagrees or calls in to question another position they are required to provide supoort for why they disagree or think the other is wrong. that is basic logic in debate and basic point in law.

[JerryLove]

Since you have asserted that the sory of Yeshua in the Talmud is not factually correct, how can work known to be unreliable (as you have asserted it is) possibly prove something; in particular, your argument that it refers (with great error) to Yeshua Bin Yoseph, and establishes his existance?

[nolidad]

Since you have asserted that the sory of Yeshua in the Talmud is not factually correct, how can work known to be unreliable (as you have asserted it is) possibly prove something; in particular, your argument that it refers (with great error) to Yeshua Bin Yoseph, and establishes his existance?

I did not say that the whole story is factually incorrect. I answered your question on the bais you asked it.

I still await for you to provide some evidence as to why Jesus may just be a made up character instead of a real historical person.

I still await evidence other than "it is so obvious" as to why the New Testament is just a self serving document.

[JerryLove]

You are either the only person here dense enough to not understand what self-serving means; or the only one willing to simply lie in order to be an ***. This explains why you can assert "here's a story that's partially false, but partially true (wherever it agrees with me), that therefore supports me, even though I offer no reason why it's partially false and true except to presuppose the conclusion".

In short, I've had a bad week and you bore me considerably at this point.

[nolidad]

You are either the only person here dense enough to not understand what self-serving means; or the only one willing to simply lie in order to be an ***. This explains why you can assert "here's a story that's partially false, but partially true (wherever it agrees with me), that therefore supports me, even though I offer no reason why it's partially false and true except to presuppose the conclusion".

No Jerry, I do know what self serving means, at least the standard dictinary definition, but after dealing with you on mnay threads, I have come to learn you often have a slightly different definition of many terms that most people accept.


Many many works are self serving, but you have yet to show any evidence why this particular work (the New Testament) was self serving. Does that mean anything you write we should just reject as self serving literature? Do you ever write truth objectively or just self serving dribble lik eyou have accussed all the writers of the New Testament of?

As tot he Pentera story, well I accept the life of Christ as the overwhelming amount of histirical literature depicts it. The Pentera story is about Jesus but has some factually incorrect information to it based on the weight of all the other evidence, not only from the writings of Scripture but also writings depicting Jewish life at the time Jesius walked the earth.

Still waiting for the evidence that shows Jesus maybe just a "myth".

Still waiting for the evidence that the New Testament SPECIFICALLY was written for self serving purposes.

Still waiting for evidence to show how those uneducated fisherman could mass decieve tens of thousands of their fellow countryman into worshipping someone they would have known would have been a myth.

Still just waiting for you to produce some evidence to your charges against the historicity of Jesus.

[nolidad]

self-serving
SYLLABICATION: self-serv·ing
PRONUNCIATION: slfsûrvng KEY
ADJECTIVE: 1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests: a speech full of self-serving comments

BTW Here is the standard dictionary definition for self serving.

With this definition in mind Jerry please supply your evidence to support your positive charge that the writers of the gospels and the new testament were self serving.

[shakeybill]

Hi guys,

I thought I'd jump in on this one and see what happens. As a Christian my own take on the Talmudic Yeshua account is that it is false (understatement...) .

It does, I believe, provide evidence that there was a person named Yeshua who had such an impact on Jewish culture that the Talmudists included him in their commentary. That they wrote of him in in a negative way is understandable in light of the division between Christianity and Judaism that existed at the time of the Talmudic writing. In other words I believe that the Talmudists were putting a negative spin on the events because of the conflict between the faiths.

This along with other 1st & 2nd century historical accounts of Christianity makes up what I see as a body of evidence that SOMETHING happened.

I have enough evidence, past and present, that I can take a small step of faith (sorry about cliche ) and believe the Gospels about Jesus. There is no empirical proof for the Gospel, but I think the evidence is good...

In Christ, Bill