Posted: Apr 02, 2022 7:05 pm
It's one thing to acknowledge various theories including all the historical Jesus theories as well as the theories that may or may not necessarily include an historical Jesus, but believing a particular theory to be true and running with it is a fools errand. Believers claim to have the truth, you and O'neill are believers, so perhaps you are frustrated posting on a rational skeptic board. Cold hard facts are in short supply so no kind of faith is going to cut it here.Stein wrote:proudfootz wrote:
This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time.
Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit
Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog!
CORRECTION: This is NOT my blog; this comes from the blog of
T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!
Duh,
Stein
This thread is about the Jesus Puzzle, if I recall you won't read it, you won't acknowledge it because you believe.