Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

This is an example of passive griefing.

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

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

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

This is an example of "I know you are but what am I?" griefing. You have a repertoire it appears.

But just for kicks... I do have an argument, presented earlier as a syllogism, which you have not addressed.

 

[jem]

Quote from res judicata:



"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Stu's zealous and purposeful ignorance vs. the educated once again.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu's zealous and purposeful ignorance vs. the educated once again.

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.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

This is an example of "I know you are but what am I?" griefing. You have a repertoire it appears.

But just for kicks... I do have an argument, presented earlier as a syllogism, which you have not addressed.

Dude... Now you're griefing about griefing.


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 yet you've made no real one.

There could have been any amount of "some kind of Jesus".

They are called .... people.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Dude... Now you're griefing about griefing.


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 yet you've made no real one.

There could have been any amount of "some kind of Jesus".

They are called .... people.

Which premise is faulty?

 

[res judicata]

repeat for Stu.

When say something substantive backed by a credible historian you will get a substantive response.

As long as you make the "moon is made of cheese arguments" you will not.

Quote from res judicata:

Stop playing games like a demented zealout.


2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[res judicata]

One more note..

Jesus and his followers were mentioned in two passages of Josephus. A famous jewish scribe of the day. His accounts were only a few years after Jesus's death.

Josephus was the youtube and CNN of the day. If you were in Josephus are part of history.

One of the passages is accepted as authentic by virtually every scholar.

For that reason Stu... you are a clown.

 

[Ricter]

Pertinent essay from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

Pertinent essay from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/

absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence.