Making friends on internet

Uncategorized 1 Minute

I would love to spend more time on this blog.

But as everyone knows: I’m an internet hardass. If you cross my path, I will spank your ass cheeks blood red. And I’ve been doing a lot of spanking in overtime.

Ask anyone on the streets, “what do you think of when world renowned shitposter Beau Montana comes to mind?”. And every last one of them will say, VERBATIM: “he’s one of the premier armchair historians of our age in the field of the historical Jesus and early Christianity, particularly in regards to the Gospel of Mark.”

So when such an honor is bestowed upon you, you can’t let transgressions like this go unpunished:

Bart Ehrman…noted atheist and academic…vehemently argues for the existence of the historical Jesus.

Perhaps the Instagram poster thought: “it’s common knowledge that Bart Ehrman argues for the historical existence of Jesus, so maybe my audience will think this meme will be ATTACKING Ehrman by using his own words against his claims.”

OR, as is most likely, the poster has no idea what Bart Ehrman actually argues, and lazily reposted this image which makes Ehrman look like he’s arguing against the historical Jesus.

That’s intellectual laziness and I’m not having it, especially since the public places their trust in me to provide valuable information and analysis.

To vent my frustrations, I took to the newest invention from our Lord and Savior Mark Zuckerberg, THREADS.

The result has been my most interacted with content I have ever posted to social media. Unfortunately I can’t link to it because it appears that Threads is still only in app form. But I’m proud of myself for adequately defending mine and Ehrman’s position with such gems as:

And

So rest assured that in this age of misinformation you still have people like me defending the truth with all the intellectual rigor required of a true scholar

Unknown's avatar

Published by Beau Montana

I’m four months behind on the rent and my credit score is 480.

Published

37 thoughts on “Making friends on internet”

    1. We have to divorce our current feelings towards Christianity from how it was developed in the first century. For example, Did Paul make him up? If so, then why did he admit to meeting his brother James in Jerusalem? Why would Paul, or James, make up a messianic figure that was crucified by the Romans, a rather undignified way to go? These are the questions we have to ask. The other historical methods we take for granted to assume other ancient figures existed (with Alexander the Great being the most touted example) doesn’t apply to Jesus from mythicists.

      It just comes across as disingenuous, IMO. And the denial of Jesus’s existence is not a serious position taken by most academics, secular or otherwise

      Like

      Reply

      1. Beau, you offer some typical christian excuses that are easy enough to dismiss. Paul claims to have met the supposed brother of jesus. No evidence for that. It’s easy to make up stories to support one’s claims to gullible human beings.

        This cult is based on martyrdom so nothing is considered “undignified”. And per the story, a blood sacrifice by torture is what this god/jesus required, so again, no reason to think this is “embarassing”.

        Other ancient figures don’t have cultists insisting that everyone obey their imaginary friend. Alexander may or may not have been as described, it doesn’t matter in the big picture since we know someone conquered those areas and we know that generals exist.

        The denial of the existence of some magical nonsense called jesus is a serious position taking by academics, and as usual, you need to use an appeal to popularity fallacy to try to defend your imaginary friend. At best, christians might appeal to some scholars who think that the jesus myth was grounded in a delusional jewish man who existed. There is no evidence for that character either, only potentially a higher probability.

        In any case, christians don’t worship a delusional jew, do you?

        Like

      2. Do you believe that Plato met Socrates? We don’t have any proof of that either. Again, you’re taking evidence to support other ancient figures existence and suspending it for Jesus.

        I’m gonna assume that you’re a good faith interlocutor and not lazily accusing me of being a Christian. So, forgive me, I’ve been arguing this for the last several days and don’t wish to continue it. So please refer to this link where I “debate” my position in https://internetruinedeverything.com/2023/11/07/interlocking/.

        I’m not technologically savvy so I don’t know how to turn that into a hyperlink, but it’s the latest post on my blog 🙏

        Like

      3. yep, no proof of plato meeting socrates. So? That doesn’t invalidate the ideas each expressed. Both philosophers could be simply imaginary and little would change.

        That wouldn’t be quite the same for the christian imaginary friend, Beau. And you have no evidence for it at all.

        I’ve had plenty of people who were christians try to deny that. So if you aren’t a christian, you will have no problem in denying jesus as being anyone’s savior, and at best only a delusional human being.

        You use all of the same ignorant nonsense that christains make up in their attempts to claim their magic jesus was real. Why are you doing that?

        the web address shows up as a hyperlink. You can make it a link attached to a certain word if you go into your comment in your comments area and use the link button that should appear at the top of the comment you want to edit.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Yes, Jesus wasn’t anyone’s savior and he was, at best, a delusional human being. I have never made the argument that he was a magical person. This is explained in the post I linked to you. Where did I ever argue that the magic Jesus is real?

        You’re right, from the perspective of philosophy, it does not matter if Plato met Socrates. But it does matter as a historian. That’s their job, as I explained in the post, and it’s a lot like detective work. A historian who shrugs and says “it doesn’t matter” is not doing their job.

        Again, my reasoning for why I think Jesus THE MAN (minus the myths and legends)existed is in that post, and from what I can recall I do not appeal to academic consensus (as always, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)

        Thank you for the information 🙏

        Like

      5. So, per your own argument, if it is historians to report reality, and not one has evidence that either magical jesus or historical jesus existed, there is no reasno to assume it exists.

        where is your evidence delusional jesus existed? Baseless assumptions, like Ehrman offers, don’t work very well.

        Like

      6. That’s my argument, don’t know if you read what I sent you, but I’ll be happy to answer questions regarding that. Until you do that, you seem to be doing exactly what I complained about in my Thread.

        If you want, go talk to Ehrman. He seems to be a pretty accessible guy

        Like

      9. Okay, I think I see where there *might* be some confusion. I say the “existence” of Jesus and not the “historicity” of Jesus. I guess those might be two different things

        Like

      22. on your link you claim that jesus existed because supposed brothers existed which you got from Josephus, etc. . Funny how there is no evidence for them just like there is no evidence for jesus.

        Like

      23. Yes, James is seemingly independently attested to by Paul and Josephus. Josephus also mentions Jesus in an obviously interpolated passage, but most scholars believe the reference is there, just Christians added onto it later. The reference to James, however, (at least as far as i know) is not thought to be interpolated.

        The only brother I referenced is James. Are you saying there’s no evidence for James AND Josephus existing? I’m confused.

        Funny you should mention that. Not saying that I’m fully convinced of this piece of evidence, but it’s speculated that archeologists found James’ Ossuary. James Tabor, who is a little giving with his understanding of the NT for my tastes tbh, makes a pretty decent argument for its authenticity. But I’ll let you be the judge

        Like

      24. It’s just great that you can’t figure out that I’m not saying josephus didn’t exist, Beau. No evidence James brother of jesus existed. No evidence that delusional jew jesus existed.

        The ossuary seems quite likely a fraud in regards to its claims to have anything to do with christianity’s jesus, especially with these claims about other ossuaries “Tabor has been involved in research on a tomb found in 1980 in Jerusalem in the area of east Talpiot. It contained ossuaries with the names Jesus son of Joseph, two Marys, a Joseph, a Matthew, and a Jude son of Jesus. In the book” – James Tabor, wikipedia

        It certainly puts a stick in the spokes of christian claims.

        Like

      25. Mmk, well if you can’t handle questions about clarity then I don’t know what to tell you 🤷‍♂️. I’m not asking because I think you’re stupid, I’m asking because I need to see how to proceed. But clearly you think I am dumb so I don’t see much reason to continue talking with you if you’re going to be condescending

        Like I said with the ossuary: take it or leave it. I’m not convinced either, but I thought it was an interesting aside.

        Like

      26. And here we go again with you making more false claims about me, Beau. I don’t think you are dumb. I do think you believe in nonsense that has no evidence for it, and you make repeated false claims.

        One of the more amusing bits about the ossuary is the review of name frequency in the region and how there could have been 1700+ guys named Joshua whose father was a joseph.

        Like

      27. Where did I make a false claim about you? If I did, I’m sorry. Besides, weren’t you trying to claim I was a covert Christian earlier? I’m just trying to clear the air.

        And I’m not making false claims. I’m simply stating what is in the historical record (I.e. Paul DID say he met James, surviving records of Josephus mention Jesus and James, etc) and you’re not buying the evidence. Which is fine, there are those arguments and those arguments should be addressed. I just want to know which one it is. If you want to say “there’s no hard archeological proof of Jesus, which alone warrants skepticism” then just say that. If you want to say all existing references to Jesus outside of the NT are interpolated, then just say that. I’m trying not strawman you.

        I presume that you’re an atheist which means we probably agree on 90% of things. My lack of faith does not depend on Jesus existing or not. The Gospels could be 100% true and I still would not worship Jesus. My point of this post was to highlight this issue because it’s not as clear cut as it may seem. This is a heavily debated topic, even among secular atheist scholars, and we shouldn’t be so dismissive of arguments and alleged evidence. That’s what theists do. And the bar for critical thinking should be higher for atheists, regardless of where we land on an issue

        Like

      28. Paul’s nonsense isn’t the historical record. Baselss claims by josephus and paul aren’t evidence, they are claims. you need evidence to support those claims.

        There is no hard archaeological proof for any of the essential events in the bible. I find it quite clear cut since there is no evidence for historical jesus or magic jesus.

        your lies? all of this “Mmk, well if you can’t handle questions about clarity then I don’t know what to tell you 🤷‍♂️.’

        “But clearly you think I am dumb so I don’t see much reason to continue talking with you if you’re going to be condescending”

        Like

Leave a reply to clubschadenfreude Cancel reply