Ah - good one. I am glad you grasp the meaning.
So that means you are not claiming to be All-Knowing about the topic of God?
I will admit I am definitely not All-Knowing about Batman (though I never did like the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
Ah - good one. I am glad you grasp the meaning.
So that means you are not claiming to be All-Knowing about the topic of God?
I will admit I am definitely not All-Knowing about Batman (though I never did like the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version).
Quote from stu:
What reason do you have this time why your computer wouldn't log on as jem into ET ........?
Is res-'typing guy' in your head going to be talking as yourself from now on, or on your behalf as before?
Who says "was called Christ" is not a profession of faith?
.... was called Christ, [as if called that by everyone] .would fit that bill just as much..
"Your whole argument is based on a poor comprehension of english.".
Regardless, a profession of faith is not the only reason why Josephus is no historical confirmation of Christ. There are other obvious common sense reasons you seemingly cannot comprehend.
You wish.
As Josephus wasn't written in English, the only poor comprehension of English, is from christian apologists who can't decide if their alleged English version should say "was called Christ" or "so called Christ"
Christian apologists' own versions of what Josephus was supposed to have written are known by scholars to have been falsified . The tiny bit which is left is disputed by scholars whom you would dismiss anyway because you can't even comprehend under any circumstances how Jesus is a fictional figure.
It isn't given "we" have any such thing , and you don't have any evidence based on historical standards.
In the absence of any historical evidence whatsoever, and considering Jesus aligns in one way or another with every other fictional/mythical character there is, by definition, your argument for Jesus as a historical person is pretty well f*kd from the get go.
Moronically repeating a non-argument whinge for a historical Jesus, does not make Jesus any less of a fictional character.
Regarding the res judicata login -- Try this. Leave your house, start a business and login to elitetrader. Then let other people who post on elitetrader use those computers sometimes. Then get back to me.
Regarding your other spew of Stu. Your writing is so fraudulent you act as if every scholar who says jesus is an historical person is a christian apologist.
When you quote scholars I will respond. Arguing with you zealouts who do not have the integrity to support their arguments is like arguing with someone saying the moon is made of cheese.
Quote from jem:
Regarding the res judicata login -- Try this. Leave your house, start a business and login to elitetrader. Then let other people who post on elitetrader use those computers sometimes. Then get back to me.
No I won't be trying that.
You were caught and called out attempting to boost some support for yourself with a new screen name and now you look a complete tool, if not insane, by struggling to lie your way out.
It's indicative of the insanity that keeps you from dealing with reality.
Quote from jem:
Regarding your other spew of Stu. Your writing is so fraudulent you act as if every scholar who says jesus is an historical person is a christian apologist.
Christian historians do not pretend Josephus is historicity of jesus. Christian apologists do.
Quote from jem:
When you quote scholars I will respond. Arguing with you zealouts who do not have the integrity to support their arguments is like arguing with someone saying the moon is made of cheese.
The argument is fully supported.
When scholars are quoted who don't agree with your religious excuses you call them bozo media whores. You have no argument and cannot come to terms with the reality of a non historical Jesus , so as usual resort to childish name calling and silly statements, with some insanity thrown in.
But in the end it is a fact , no historian has at any time ever provided any argument that will stand as historicity for bible Jesus .
The reason why is very strightforward.
There is NOTHING historically that characteristically establishes bible Jesus as authentic . There is NO historicity of Jesus.
You keep speaking of the very absolutes you say it is wrong to keep speaking of!Quote from MarketMasher:
Ah - good one. I am glad you grasp the meaning.
So that means you are not claiming to be All-Knowing about the topic of God?
I will admit I am definitely not All-Knowing about Batman (though I never did like the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version).
If you talk about who killed Jesus, it is basically comparable to posing a question about who killed Batman, or any other fictional/mythical character.
People are perfectly entitled to treat the Bible as if it wasn't a 2000 year old DC Comic, but essentially that IS what the Bible is.
Quote from stu:
You keep speaking of the very absolutes you say it is wrong to keep speaking of!
If you talk about who killed Jesus, it is basically comparable to posing a question about who killed Batman, or any other fictional/mythical character.
People are perfectly entitled to treat the Bible as if it wasn't a 2000 year old DC Comic, but essentially that IS what the Bible is.
No - I humbly admit I am not All-Knowing about Batman.
All you All-Knowing on the topic of God?
You say it is a common mistake to speak in absolutes, but you keep speaking in absolutes and keep asking me to answer in absolutes.Quote from MarketMasher:
No - I humbly admit I am not All-Knowing about Batman.
All you All-Knowing on the topic of God?
Do you really think one would have to be "All-knowing" about Batman to recognize he is a fictional figure.?
Likewise, how come one would need to speak in "All-knowing" absolutes to recognize how Jesus / God are fictional figures?
Quote from stu:
You say it is a common mistake to speak in absolutes, but you keep speaking in absolutes and keep asking me to answer in absolutes.
Do you really think one would have to be "All-knowing" about Batman to recognize he is a fictional figure.?
Likewise, how come one would need to speak in "All-knowing" absolutes to recognize how Jesus / God are fictional figures?
Why do you find it difficult to answer the question?
Are you All-Knowing on the topic of God?
A 'yes' or 'no' will do.
Quote from stu:
No I won't be trying that.
You were caught and called out attempting to boost some support for yourself with a new screen name and now you look a complete tool, if not insane, by struggling to lie your way out.
It's indicative of the insanity that keeps you from dealing with reality.
Christian historians do not pretend Josephus is historicity of jesus. Christian apologists do.
The argument is fully supported.
When scholars are quoted who don't agree with your religious excuses you call them bozo media whores. You have no argument and cannot come to terms with the reality of a non historical Jesus , so as usual resort to childish name calling and silly statements, with some insanity thrown in.
But in the end it is a fact , no historian has at any time ever provided any argument that will stand as historicity for bible Jesus .
The reason why is very strightforward.
There is NOTHING historically that characteristically establishes bible Jesus as authentic . There is NO historicity of Jesus.
caught? you are a fraud.... the machines are in different zip codes with different service providers. I let people know it was me.
"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]"
Quote from stu:
Likewise, how come one would need to speak in "All-knowing" absolutes to recognize how Jesus / God are fictional figures?
Oh - ok. I see what you are saying.
So, since you are not speaking in absolutes (and therefore not speaking as All-Knowing), you are allowing for the possibility of God to exist, since you are not declaring God as non-existent in absolute terms.
Quote from MarketMasher:
Oh - ok. I see what you are saying.
So, since you are not speaking in absolutes (and therefore not speaking as All-Knowing), you are allowing for the possibility of God to exist, since you are not declaring God as non-existent in absolute terms.
Lol, I tried that tack with him. He will not even go that tiny distance. That's why I made my statement that I think he fears if he admitted there was probably a Jesus, even if only an ordinary man, then he thinks he would have to admit a God created the universe in 6 days. Which is a false conclusion of course, one is not compelled, logically, by the former, to admit the latter.