Hey, I'm just trying to figure out who is All-Knowing so I know who to listen to.........
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
Hey, I'm just trying to figure out who is All-Knowing so I know who to listen to.........
yeah you were caught with an infantile excuse bordering on the insane.Quote from jem:
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]"
But nevertheless in the end it remains a fact , no historian has at any time ever provided any historical argument that stands as historicity for a bible Jesus.
Jesus IS fictional jem,.... but it doesn't matter.
Lots of people think Elvis is alive on Mars. There are no absolutes, so no one can prove them wrong. see?
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.
I don't think you do actually see what I'm saying any more than Ricter sees what I'm saying..
I allow for the possibility of God to exist in the same way I allow for the possibility of King Midas to exist (you don't recall that Ricter?) ...or as you might allow for the possibility of Batman to exist.
You speak in and of absolutes whilst saying it's a mistake to.
You've conditioned your argument around an imovable, inflexible, fixed, fictional absolute called God.
So how would you really see what others are saying who aren't doing that, who aren't making what you said was that mistake?
Quote from stu:
yeah you were caught with an infantile excuse bordering on the insane.
But nevertheless in the end it remains a fact , no historian has at any time ever provided any historical argument that stands as historicity for a bible Jesus.
Jesus IS fictional jem,.... but it doesn't matter.
Lots of people think Elvis is alive on Mars. There are no absolutes, so no one can prove them wrong. see?
you see those numbers next to my quote from wiki - that lets people know that scholars did work to support their statements as opposed to posting unsubstantiated bs. See the part of the quote about "methodological deficiencies"... do you see the humor here... that is what all your posts suffer from.
"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 jem:
you see those numbers next to my quote from wiki - that lets people know that scholars did work to support their statements as opposed to posting unsubstantiated bs. See the part of the quote about "methodological deficiencies"... do you see the humor here... that is what all your posts suffer from.
"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]
Numbers next to quotes...how ridiculous.
They reference books..you know what... that would make your scholar just another 'bozo media whore,' according to your own standards.
If there were any "methodological deficiencies", as a professional historian, your scholar wouldn't be winging about those who dispute his statements, but would address the critical questions raised accordingly by other scholars, and substantiate and establish his claims beyond all reasonable doubt.
That has not been done by anyone and is another reason upon all the many others why Jesus is not an historical figure.
Christian historians don't moan that way .
Christian historian apologists do.
"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:
You've conditioned your argument around an imovable, inflexible, fixed, fictional absolute called God.
So how would you really see what others are saying who aren't doing that, who aren't making what you said was that mistake?
Can't that be rephrased:
You've conditioned your argument around an imovable, inflexible, fixed, fictional absolute called "non-God".
If you are not speaking in absolutes, that leaves open the possibility of the existence of God.
Unless you are saying there is positively, absolutely, no God.
Ok - I think I comprehend now.
1) You claim that God is fictional.
2) You are not stating so in absolute terms (therefore, not with 100% certainty)
3) Without 100% certainty, that means that there is a possibility that God exists.
Therefore:
You believe that God may exist.
Unless you are saying you are "certain" God does not exist. Or do you just "doubt" that God exists?
1) You claim that God is fictional.
2) You are not stating so in absolute terms (therefore, not with 100% certainty)
3) Without 100% certainty, that means that there is a possibility that God exists.
Therefore:
You believe that God may exist.
Unless you are saying you are "certain" God does not exist. Or do you just "doubt" that God exists?
Constantly posting some moaning and groaning like a troll about James Dunn's frustration at the fact that there is no historical evidence to establish Jesus as an historical figure, does not establish Jesus as an historical figure.Quote from jem:
"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]
You do at least realize that much?
One doesn't need to believe that God may exist to understand how God doesn't exist. God does not exist as all fictional things do not exist .Quote from MarketMasher:
Ok - I think I comprehend now.
1) You claim that God is fictional.
2) You are not stating so in absolute terms (therefore, not with 100% certainty)
3) Without 100% certainty, that means that there is a possibility that God exists.
Therefore:
You believe that God may exist.
Unless you are saying you are "certain" God does not exist. Or do you just "doubt" that God exists?
1) Batman has all the qualities of a fictional character. So does God. The claim Batman and God are fictional is substantiated in fact.
2) I am stating God is as fictional as Batman. A 100% certainty seems unnecessary and inadequate given the actuality.
3) A sensible possibility does not necessarily follow from a particular non-certainty .
You are presenting absolutes and say no one has certainty of them , to argue that without absolutes comes possibility. It's illogical and disjointed.
However, a little objective reasoning is usually more than enough to separate fiction from reality for most people, except apparently where religion is concerned - not arguing around "All -Knowing" absolutes as you are doing.
Both Batman and God bear all the hallmarks of fictional characters. Neither have any of the non-fictional qualities required to suggest they actually exist.
If they did, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
But then there is that possibility you might argue no one could in certainty be 100% absolutely All-Knowing about that either.