LMAOOOOOOO nice fantasy JEM.
Is this what you dream about after another attorney has
completely destroyed you in court? Make you feel better JEM?
Nice strawman by the way. Why dont you try addressing
the issue im debating?
Your a typical slimeball attorney. Dodging and weaving and
spinning fairy tales.
Here is the real meat of the issue JEM.
For the sake of argument, lets assume Josephus WAS NOT
forged at all, because its such a minor point I dont have to
rely on, although the evidence clearly shows this.
1) Josephus recorded something he heard about Jesus that
had been floating around by word of mouth for over 3 decades,
which is HEARSAY by definition
2) Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law, unless it qualifies
under certain known exceptions,
3) You IMPLIED it falls under the "records" exception, so I addressed
this and showed that it DOES NOT fulfill the requirements for
that exception since for it to be considered, it
must be recorded DURING THE SAME TIME, not 3 decades after
the fact, and in the course of BUSINESS.
Therefore: We have un-admissible HEARSAY. I researched
the law and asked TWO of my personal attorney friends.
They claim you are FULL OF IT, and are attempting to hide
behind your attorney authority on the subject
Since you COMPLETELY FAILED to address this issue, or
more importantly chose to SPIN court room fantasy with
YOU AS THE JUDGE, ATTORNEY, AND JURY (LMAOOOO),
it is incredibly clear you have no case.
Why else would you have to spin such fantasy
Let me be blunt JEM. You are a SAD excuse for an attorney
who doesnt know the law very well. My buddies were busting
out laughing when I told them what you were attempting to claim.
Your PEERS are laughing at you
Come back to the table when you can QUOTE SOME LAW
instead of little cutsy fantasies you spin to support your
assertion that the Josephus hearsay is admissible.
Better yet, go back to law school, and this time, try paying attention
peace
axeman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you could understand your own quotes. You would comprehend that you are quoting the debate on the sentence "Jesus was the Mesiah" or is the messiah. It is assumed that this sentence was added later because Jospeheus was not a Christian.
So as I said yes it is argued that "Jesus was Mesiah" could be a forgery. But noone but wackos and you deny that Josepheus made reference to Jesus in his famous recordation of history.
So your arguement is sOOOOOO completely wrong and your quotes actually confirm what I have been stating to you this entire time.
Josephues made reference to Jesus and his followers.
Two
You said Josephues was hearsay and would never be admitted in a court of law. I stated you should leave the lawyering to lawers because it is out of your league. YOU HAVE SO LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW AND YET YOU FORCE ME TO BELITTLE YOU.
Issue- was Jesus a historical figure.
Answer- He was historically MADE REFERENCE TO IN recorded HISTORIES LIKE JOSEPHUES BESIDES THE BIBLE.
axe- although I am AN IDIOT not a lawyer I object- hearsay
JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
Judge- You are correct. Axe is a fool. You are not seeking to prove the truth of the matter so hearsay is an improper objection.
Issue- Did jesus exist?
bible and other historical records.
Axe see above hearsay
Jem I believe Josepheus recorded this history as a part of his duties.
Judge - it comes in
AXE but it was 35 years after the fact.
Yes but my interpretation of it is that this clerk was recording his history and put it in as part of his duties at that time. Plus when we are dealing with histories 2000 years old 35 years is pretty contempraneous. If the issues was whether jesus had shoes or sandals on while on the cross, I might be more inclined to sustain the objection.
But as to whether Jesus was recorded in history. What more do you want than quotes from a historian, and letters by Christians to that became parts of the bible. Should jesus have hired his own personal historian to record his life contemporaneously.
Like I said axe your arguments sucks.
Jesus and his follwers were referenced in Jospeheus.
Let us agree to strike the words "Jesus was the mesiah" and once we do axe you have not argument. You do not comprehend the subject of your own quotes.
AXE you lose and you are done. [/B]
