Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

Quote from MarketMasher:

YOU used the word "certainty". Do you really need a link to your own post? You made the claim. (see page 41).
More...
I made no such claim on page 41 or elsewhere.
Link the post.

You too have "used the word 'certainty' "...
Are you trying to be clever?

Quote from MarketMasher:

You claim certainty.
More...
Seeing things that aren't there are you... or just incapable of reading properly?

The only one claiming certainty is you, on my behalf.

Quote from MarketMasher:

Therefore you are not claiming science, where theories can never be proved (and are always open to change).

Instead, what you are claiming - preaching - is religion.

It may not be as formalized as a bible-thumping evangelical's, but it is religion nonetheless. Fixed. Immutable. Certain.

And preached from a position of being All-Knowing on the topic.

All under the guise of being anti-religion.

Who do you think you're kidding, preacher?
More...

That will be what you wished your argument could have been all along , so you falsely attribute the words "absolute" "certainty" and "All-Knowing" , then accuse me of saying them. You make false claims.

I asked who do you think you are kidding. Obviously it's yourself.

Remember , you're the guy saying DC comic Batman could have actually existed because that might add some credibility to the idea that Jesus could have existed.
Puuleeze.
 
Quote from jem:

1. You are the abusive zealout... I just respond in kind.

2. Your reasoning is twisted.... Read the passages again.

The best infidels.org could muster against the second passage was the undocumented claim that "some scholars" thought it might be problem. (where are those scholars... who are they)

and in the end they admit there is not enough ( there is actually no evidence) to conclude the second passage is fraudulent.

hence by definition Jesus is a historical figure.

And note - that site is infidels.org. That is about as slanted a site as you can get for your side.
More...
1. Yes, your posts ARE angry, zealous, abusive, ignorant , arrogant and illogical.

2. Read the passages again. Your reasoning is twisted.


Nowhere in that link you made to 'Infidels' does it provide ANY basic or classical historical evidence that Jesus did ever exist.

That's YOUR problem.

As with all fictional and mythical figures, as with bible Jesus, there is no historical evidence of their existence.
 
Quote from stu:

...

2. Read the passages again. Your reasoning is twisted.


Nowhere in that link you made to 'Infidels' does it provide ANY basic or classical historical evidence that Jesus did ever exist.

That's YOUR problem...
More...

your logic and integrity on full display.

Yes - I would fully expect to see not only proof of jesus' historicity but proof he is God... on infidels.org.

Your are trying very hard.... and you are creative enough but your arguments are not smart enough to be the master troll you aspire to be. You will have to go back, hit the books, and study how zzz framed arguments if you really want to be a great troll.
 
Quote from jem:

your logic and integrity on full display.

Yes - I would fully expect to see not only proof of jesus' historicity but proof he is God... on infidels.org.

Your are trying very hard.... and you are creative enough but your arguments are not smart enough to be the master troll you aspire to be. You will have to go back, hit the books, and study how zzz framed arguments if you really want to be a great troll.
More...
You linked Infidels. Why? It did nothing for your pathetic argument. Were you imagining they had left you some sort of room to make yet another completely delusional remark?
  • Even if there were no evidence to conclude Josephus text is not fraudulent, that does not make the Josephus text genuine.
  • Neither does it remove the fact that the majority mentioning of Christ in Josephus IS christian fraud.
  • Nor does it remove the fact that Josephus text is fundamentally hearsay only and therefore not valid historical evidence.
  • Nor does it mean the obvious common sense understanding that the reason (use of the word Christ) given for not accepting one passage is the same for not accepting another passage.
  • Nor does it remove the fact there is no other historically valid supporting evidence anywhere throughout the whole of history to make bible Jesus anything other than a fictional character.
Going by your absurd posts, clearly you don't have the intelligence to hold a rational viewpoint, so being able to recognize you have no argument is clearly no more apparent to you than how much of a complete pratt you look after trying to excuse your way out of a dual personality attack.

Factual people who lived have historicity.
Fictional characters have no historicity.

Bible Jesus has no historicity. Bible Jesus is a fictional character.
 
You are not arguing with me.. you are arguing with virtually all the scholars.

Once again STU knows more than the scholars, or the dictionary, or the nobel prize winners or the founders of string theory or in this case scholars of ancient times.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""
 
Historians and scholars do not claim Jesus’s historicity; because there is none.
Christian historians and scholars do not claim Jesus's historicity; because there is none.

Christian apologists whether they otherwise act like historians or scholars, claim Jesus's historicity, even though there is none.
Historians and scholars dispute Christian apologists' claims of Jesus's historicity.

Childishly repeating a bitch and moan 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 stu:

Historians and scholars do not claim Jesus’s historicity; because there is none.
Christian historians and scholars do not claim Jesus's historicity; because there is none.

Christian apologists whether they otherwise act like historians or scholars, claim Jesus's historicity, even though there is none.
Historians and scholars dispute Christian apologists' claims of Jesus's historicity.

Childishly repeating a bitch and moan 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.
More...

childishly repeating your delusion will not make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
 
Quote from stu:

Whatever. Be as ridiculous as you will. It's all you have as you have no argument .

A Wiki web page with no valid historical evidence of Jesus, is not historical evidence of Jesus.
More...

Once again with have Stu vs. scholars.

Oddly the wiki page presents evidence and some of that evidence is accepted by just about every scholar.


"As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[124]"
 
Quote from jem:

Once again with have Stu vs. scholars.

Oddly the wiki page presents evidence and some of that evidence is accepted by just about every scholar.


"As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[124]"
More...

Christian apologists on a flagged Wiki page because the neutrality of the article is disputed, are hardly presenting evidence any more than you are.

James Dunn needs to validate not whine about some "thoroughly dead thesis" or other , as that does not provide any evidence for a historical Jesus.

It just turns an Historian with nothing that stands as historicity for Jesus into another christian apologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top