When Was Jesus Born Again?

[Cmerry92]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

[One Above All]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

Tell us, oh mighty one, who these many scholars are who agree on the existence of the one born from a "virgin".

[Brakeman]

HMM I don't think people who went to divinity school and studied jesus' life would be biased in any way, after all, they're EXPERTS in the field..

[velkyn]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

I'm curious, Cmerry, do you worship a Jewish rabbi that did no miracles and was predicting the imminent return of his god?  Or do you worship Jesus Christ, the son of your god, that did miracles, and by whose sacrifice your sins are forgiven? 

Some scholars believe that there could have been a real man at the kernel of the Jesus myth, but they do not believe that a divine being existed.

[Hatter23]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

It is not ignorant to say Jesus is imaginary, because "Jesus" generally refers to a mytholgical figure with magical powers.

[Omen]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

Very few historians and scholars consider the literal Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in biblical scripture as existent.

[Lorax]

This would be a healthy and cogent thing to say on the way to admitting "no, there is no significance to Quirinius"

  I love how you try to intimate that something is not “healthy or cogent” when it disagrees with you, Lorax. 

I could interpret it another way I suppose. something like Christians say Quirinius existed, but nobody with a functioning brain would believe Quirinius actually did exist. which would be a sensible thing to say, but factually incorrect.

Or I could interpret it to mean that you believe the Historicity of Quirinius is the central lynchpin of Christian defenses about Jesus, and that they have gathered (presumably all of them) to assign this significance to the case for Quirinius and if therefore you can prove it false you can discredit all of christian apologetic at once.

This would be an argument that i could only describe as regoddamndiculious

Yep, it is pretty ridiculous and it’s a lovely strawman argument that you’ve created for yourself.  Congratulations! 

You’ve managed to ignore what I actually said which is quite simple. 

Christians claim that Quirinius' existence as a real person means that JC existed too.  It makes no sense to anyone who has a functioning brain that does not have a presupposition to support, but *this* is the significance that Christians assign to Qurinius.

No claim of any “lynchpin”.  No claim of all of the other ridiculous things you’ve made up. 

Sicne the rest of your post is dependent on your strawman, I’m not going to bother.  I’m quite happy to watch you immolate yourself.

Well that's 3 main guesses that go down a total of 9 roads on my way to deciphering what you meant to say. All of them are wrong.

Are you ready to tell me what you did mean? Or would you like to dodge around some more while you think up a way out of this one?

[Lorax]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

Very few historians and scholars consider the literal Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in biblical scripture as existent.

Yow.

Ouch Ouch.

You just made that way worse for yourself. That's the kind of clarification that works in the wrong direction.

You might have been able to clarify your original point down to something defensible, but this... what you just said there.. is not defensible.

First of all, you didn't specify "biblical scholars" or even "1st century historians" just the Lions share of all historians and scholars all together, and then you define the historicity of jesus as "Jesus as described in the bible"

Really? The whole bible? The majority of scholars in the worls believe everything the bible says about Jesus?
So they're Christians then? They believe in Jesus.

Very few aren't?

I'll give you one free rewind. I feel like you can do this. I'll start you off again.



It's ignorant to say Jesus never existed because ________________________

[Graybeard]

Jesus was never born, He was always there:

John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
2nd Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

I'll warrant that no Christian has ever seen a photograph of Jesus's bellybutton.

[Brakeman]

Jesus was never born, He was always there:

John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
2nd Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

That causes quite the problem doesn't it? If Jesus was Jesus before Mary, then he couldn't really be a man and know how men struggle and carry sin if his mind was wholly god.
What would be the point of having him be borne of a woman? Why didn't god have his son born of a chicken or a tree or something amazing like that? Having the son of god come down in a bolt of magic lightning is even better than the mundane birth from a desert woman.

[velkyn]

Well that's 3 main guesses that go down a total of 9 roads on my way to deciphering what you meant to say. All of them are wrong.

Are you ready to tell me what you did mean? Or would you like to dodge around some more while you think up a way out of this one?

jesusjumpingjehosophat, you are one stupid person and I don't use that word often.  I already have told you what I meant, repeatedly.  It's nice to see you ignoring that every single time.  Keep on ignoring it, Lorax.  It's pretty darned amusing.

[GodlessHeathen]

Look you just sound ignorant if you say Jesus is imaginary. Very few scholars debate the existence of Jesus.

Very few first century historians debate the existence of Jesus either; also very few affirm it.

EDIT@ Indeed, no first century historian mentions Jesus. Even the references attributed to Josephus, which the Christians extol as being such a profound proof of the existence of Jesus, are obvious interpolations (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm).

[Graybeard]

It's ignorant to say Jesus never existed because ________________________

It's ignorant to say Jesus never existed because there's a book about Him and that book isn't just like a Harry Potter book because Harry Potter isn't real but Jesus is.

I think that is about the level of the Christian argument, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Hatter23]

It's ignorant to say Jesus never existed because ________________________

It's ignorant to say Jesus never existed because there's a book about Him and that book isn't just like a Harry Potter book because Harry Potter isn't real but Jesus is.

I think that is about the level of the Christian argument, correct me if I'm wrong.

It is a touch more sophisticated as we know Harry Potter is fiction and millions believe in Christianity.
...
...
...
...
...


 Yup, now we've reached the level of the Christian argument.