JEM: May be name calling but it is true because you put up misrepresenations and distortions.
Two can play at that game. YOUR AN IDIOT. May be name
calling but its true
Drop the childish bullshit Jem, I expect
this from longshot, but not from you.
JEM: Burden of Proof -- you made the argument that there is no record of Jesus. I point out that if you put together every record of anything 2000 years old it adds up to a small bookshelf, and you say the burden is on me. That is a great juvenile response. But, why not admit your argument was misleading and lacking in foundation.
Clearly you are confused. The burden of proof *IS* on me
when it comes to there being no contemporary record of jesus,
that is true. But that is NOT what I was referring to when I claimed
the burden of proof was on you.
You provided the exceptionally LAME excuse that there is no
evidence simply because its been 2000 years. We have evidence
for other OLDER figures than this, DUH. Aristotle anyone?
Now THIS is a NEW ASSERTION on your part and the one
which I was referring to.
You imply this is a valid excuse when it clearly is not.
I might as well claim I have 100% proof for the lochness monster
because there are close up high resolution photos!
Oh but guess what? The photos were taken 20 years ago
and so much time has passed that they were lost.
Riiiiighhht.... yeah that works! NOT!
Now try producing a REAL rebuttal ok?
Crying about lost documents cannot make a case.
You must actually produce them. If you cant...tough,
thats YOUR problem.
I would love to see you walk into court and tell a judge that
your evidence is MISSING because too much time as passed! LOL
JEM:A proper argument would point out that we have x number of pages of records that are 2000 years old and that only Josepheus and a few others reference christ or christians. I have seen christians argue the other side of this point.
The fact is your argument sucked.
LOL. Another lame assertion. My much stronger argument is
that Josephus was CLEARLY TAMPERED WITH, and secondly
***HE IS NOT A CONTEMPORARY HISTORIAN***. His tiny little
jesus quote is MERE HEARSAY. You continue to GLOSS OVER
this fact because you know the argument is rock solid and
you are standing on no ground.
Further.... for someone so WIDELY known, isnt it funny
that ONLY Jesus's records were lost when we know so much
about the Romans of the time??? Give me a break!
JEM:Some, not all of the passages are in question. Not the whole record All legitmate academics agree with this assesment. The only ones you point to were wackos with books written to sell to atheists. Wackos on the internet with wacko books are not worth consideration.
Oooooh of course!!! Anyone YOU quote is an expert.
Anyone I quote is a whacko! LMAOOOOO your getting pathetic here JEM!
Your desperation is showing!!
In case you didnt notice, I QUOTED BIBLICAL SCHOLARS
who are THEISTS which claim Josephus is TAINTED.
Your claim that
"All legitmate academics agree"
ALL Jem? ALL? You KNOW this is blatantly false.
JEM:As you are undereducated in this matter I should inform you that hearsay is allowed in trials all the time. Leave the law to lawyers. Records being one of the frequent exceptions to the hearsay objection.
Ummmm Jem.... my close friend is also an attorney so I checked with him and google.
He says you are full of it
In general hearsay evidence is
inadmissible *unless* it falls within a
common law or statutory exception.
Since you mentioned "Records" as one of these exceptions
the law states that:
To be admissable, hearsay records must follow the 'best evidence' rule by being recorded in the normal course of doing business AND AT THE TIME BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED
Josephus recorded a hearsay rumour 35 years AFTER THE FACT
and NOT during the course of a public/business style recording.
So sorry.... BZZZZZZZZT. Its NOT admissable by law.
Didnt think I would check Jem? Come on dude. You should
know better than that.
Stop trying to play the attorney card. I have the attorney
resources and you are NOT going to slip one by me like that.
AXE:Try providing ONE CONTEMPORARY HISTORIAN who mentions
jesus, the man god who was supposedly WIDELY known.
Full of holes JEM. The weakest most unsupported argument ive
ever heard you make. Very disappointing for an attorney.
I hope your not a trail lawyer, would feel sorry for anyone
you were defending
I see you failed to address this. Because you cant.
Come on JEM... give us ONE CONTEMPORARY historian.
JUST ONE, LOL!
JEM:You pick, you choose, you distort. You value to legitimate debate is useless. You are probably a fine person just a useless person to engage in discussion with.
More Ad Hominems form a desperate opponent who has been
sliced to pieces in this debate. LOL
Your frustration and emotions give you away Jem.
Your entire position rests on a tiny, out of context phrase,
with a high probability of forgery, from a NON-contemporary
historian, consisting of 35 year old HEARSAY which is NOT
admissable in a court of LAW!!!
I think than sums it up nicely!
Need I say more? Dont think so.... but what the hell...
I enjoy slamming coffin nails until they are paper thin
Isnt it INTERESTING that you didnt address the fact that
the FORGED Josephus quote did NOT appear in earlier
copies of Josephus?!?!?! LOL!
Dude... give it up. Its too easy chopping your weak argument to pieces.
Because its impossible to support with so much riding against you.
peace
axeman
