Search results

Agnostic is not "don't know". It's confused self-contradictory copping-out. Agnostic is uncertainty in all claims of knowledge of anything. So agnostic is uncertainty in all claims of knowledge of agnostic. Duh. You only have religious agnostics where logical definitions of atheist are...

Dude... Now you're griefing about griefing. :D In your "syllogism" post (of which the premise is faulty btw) you stated.. " ..... I personally think it's probable there was 'some kind' of Jesus, if not divine, ........" If you do have an argument please explain what it is. As...

So your whole "educated argument" is, because Jesus has no historical authenticity, Jesus must have historical authenticity , and anyone who says different is zealos and purposefuly ignorant. What a coincidence those are the very traits that "educated argument" portrays.

....this is an example of a new griefer now it's clear you have no real argument.

I think it fair to say there have been "jesus like figures" throughout time.

Good griefing..... maybe. ...you know, it really isn't my fault there is no historical evidence Jesus ever actually existed. Don't blame me dude. Shooting the messenger won't change the fact.

You've developed a schizophrenic personality in the form of two screen names and you're accusing me of playing games like a demented zealout. lol you get more wierd by the day. Context and meaning for the terms - Jesus, Bible Jesus or Jesus of the Bible - is perfectly clear . For what...

Jem, did you realize you've gone all schizo again with your new alter ego alias? So just what do you think bible Jesus means if not the Jesus mentioned in the bible? You can't see anyone arguing for the historicity of bible Jesus.? Which side of your split personality are you trying to...

Lol. While you two are trying to convince each other that fictional means non-fictional, it still remains that bible Jesus has non of the qualities of being historically authentic. De-facto fictional Jesus, until you can find historical evidence to the contrary.

Only as certain as there was no King Midas.

You're not making any sense Ricter. Evolution is nothing to do with creation or a creator. Saying you accept the process of evolution works and you believe in a creator is not about flexibility. It's about irrelevance. Show me some normal historical evidence for the "Jesus dude" . The...

sheesh that was fast Ricter. You must have been up all night waiting to pounce with that one :D Funny how you didn't first enquire if Jem might have a cut&paste terror bot he makes so many claims by them all over the place. You're not appearing too objective this morning dude. Tired...

You posted a link about stories and cut and pasted more stories about stories of Jesus. Stories are not external sources of historical evidence.

1. There were accounts....of another account.... but it looks like the other account disappeared ? That's your account for a historical Jesus? 2. There are no eye witness accounts in the bible gnostic texts nor anywhere else that can be verified as historically non-fictional . That's...

To be fair Ricter, religion and its apologists make things overcomplicated. This is about as uncomplicated as it gets: Obviously Bible stories are not evidence that the Bible stories are historically correct. The Bible does not prove the historicityof Jesus. There should be as with...

There is no preponderance of evidence. The Bible is not historical evidence that the Bible stories are themselves historical events , or that Jesus existed, any more than a Christmas Carol is historical evidence that Scrooge existed.

...for actions that have no historical basis in reality.

Nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. There is just no historicity - period. There are non of the historical characteristics required for Bible Jesus ever having actually existed in history. The qualities of Jesus being historically authentic are entirely missing. What...

Are you seriously trying to suggest 12 versions of the Bible change the Bible from a book of fictional tales to non-fictional ? So why 12? Could 10 versions not have done it. Or just 1? What about 12 versions of Robin Hood of Loxley. Would a magic 12 make that non-fiction. Instead of...

For someone who says they are not religious by any stretch, you sure get very abusive as an apologist for religion. Strange. So accordingly , you definitely can’t know if your great granddaddy was fictional or non-fictional other than by your own existence? Refusing method and all...