Evidence considered.

Case dismissed

<yawn> SS-DD

If you want to think that your godboy was walking around taking a morning dump while reading the Jerusalem Times every morning, go ahead. Your delusions are your own.

What you seem to miss is that most of the scholars you keep trumpeting do not accept the miracle-worker that is so precious to shitheads like you. They are continually trying to shrink the story down to something that they personally find 'believable.' And a dead jew coming back to life to atone for the sins of the fucking world does not cut it. For that you need a real theological asshole and they can safely be dismissed.

Why is it so important to you? What do you think it proves?

Why are you so fucking obsessed?

(November 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: For that you need a real theological asshole

Isn't that what altar boys are for?

Only for catholics.

(November 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Here is just a thought, too. The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.

The fact that this small group on this forum thinks otherwise is no problem...the fact that Jesus existed is an issue that most historical skeptics regarding Christianity and Christians can actually agree on...if you are not on board...that is your issue.

Here's the thing, though. We are not dealing with "the vast majority of historians", we're dealing with you and your assertions of a "vast majority". The two or three names you've cited have been examined and found sorely wanting, for reasons that have been explained to you at length. These people are not unknown to many of us and their 'work' dissected many times over the years - peer review, if you like.

It's rather like 1 Corinthians 15:6. One single reference to "five hundred brethren" and apologists such as Josh McDowell turn that into "an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony".

(November 25, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Here's the thing, though. We are not dealing with "the vast majority of historians", we're dealing with you and your assertions of a "vast majority". The two or three names you've cited have been examined and found sorely wanting, for reasons that have been explained to you at length. These people are not unknown to many of us and their 'work' dissected many times over the years - peer review, if you like.

It's rather like 1 Corinthians 15:6. One single reference to "five hundred brethren" and apologists such as Josh McDowell turn that into "an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony".

The problem is that His_Majesty seems unable to distinguish between "things His_Majesty says," and "absolute factual truth." To him, the mere fact that he made the claim is also the evidence that supports it; that's why we can go through approximately fifty billion pages of asking him for evidence to support his views on evolution, get none, and still end up with a "boy, I really beat you guys!" statement from the guy.

For fuck's sake . . . let's just get on with it: "Jesus' resurrection is historically factual because the Bible says so." And maybe a "why would believers die for a lie?" thrown in for good measure. When all the strutting and posturing is over, this is all he has.

(November 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: For fuck's sake . . . let's just get on with it: "Jesus' resurrection is historically factual because the Bible says so." And maybe a "why would believers die for a lie?" thrown in for good measure. When all the strutting and posturing is over, this is all he has.

And when they're asked about all those willing to die for Islam they then claim that THOSE people are deluded . . .

(November 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 24, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you on the ass.

You're stupid, because you compare the existence of a person for whom no contemporary source exists, versus on where a great many contemporary sources do.

You are the one that is stupid, because you are making my point despite being to stupid to realize that to be the case.

You said "verse on where a agreat many contemporary sources do"...so how do yo know that they are contemporary sources...ohhh, wait, right back to believing what you were told, right?

Like I said, made my point for me.

(November 24, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So, yes, it would appear that you really are that stupid. Which, incidentally, is not an ad hominem - it's an inescapable conclusion one reaches when reading your arguments.

You believe that there are contemporary sources for George Washington's presidency based soley on what you were told. You were not there...you only go by what someone else told you, and you don't even know if that person was there

Stupid.

(November 24, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: As I have better things to do at the moment, I'll leave the arguments to my counterparts here, and resume the regularly scheduled mocking you so richly deserve.

Your counterparts can't handle me either. I began this thread so I can purposely intellectually spank every single person on here that has something to say....and I am doing a damn good job of it

Your argument is nonsense and deserves no further thought from myself or anyone else. I'm through picking up the pieces and cleaning your shit off the board.



(with apologies to the Christians whom the above image does not apply to)

This might be a little overdue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method