Well if his chosen emoticons are any guide, he likes to depict himself on his back a lot, unable to get up and giggling. That says toddler to me.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml

Citing a Christian site which lists a few quotes is not, you know, a study, which was my request.

You're not honest enough to admit that you just pulled that claim out of your ass. It's cool. I had you pegged right.

I had that one, the vid of Dawkins, the wikipedia link, and the vid of Bart Erhman speaking on the broad consensus of the subject.

You got more than what you asked for. If that isn't enough, I can't help you.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Hey, this isn't a poll of historians either, is it?

I don't remember saying anything about a damn poll.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Nice to know you cannot support your claim. You said the "vast majority" of historians accept the historicity of Jesus, yet cannot produce a poll demonstrating such.

I didn't know that having a poll was the criteria.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Instead, you link to two sites, one obviously biased, with a total of twelve quotes, including some from theologians, who are irrelevant to my request.

Again, I will repeat; You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Now again, I don't know what more you want...oh yeah...a poll. Well, too bad...I don't have a poll nor did I claim to have a poll. What I have is videos and quotes from men that are in the field, and they are all saying the same freakin' thing.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Now, you and I both know that there are more than twenty-three (I'm in a generous mood) historians in America. So, where are you getting this "overwhelming majority" from?

Where am I getting it from? Again, for the third time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: And I've found one point of agreement with you: the links you've posted are shit.

Videos and quotes of people maintaining the exact point I've argued here.

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm content letting the readership of this thread make that judgment. I'm very comfortable with my assessment of you as a typical dishonest apologist.

Typical? I thought I was one of a kind

(November 30, 2014 at 1:00 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: As for why I'm not Googling this, that's because my point is not to confirm your bullshit claim -- and that's what it is, bullshit. My aim here is to demonstrate that your claim is baseless, that you don't have any poll conducted by a reputable, unbiased source demonstrating your claim.

Fourth time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

You keep spewing that nonsense about what you haven't gotten, instead of focusing on what you DID get...and four times I reminded you of what you've gotten.

If the general consensus WASN'T true, then you wouldn't have so many people (that you were provided) saying that it IS true...and not behind closed doors, but openly in public, by believers and unbelievers alike.

Now again, if that isn't good enough for you, than to bad.

---

(November 30, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the historicity of Jesus?

And you aren't a bully, more like a clumsy toddler.

Trouble being, HM, we would all show up and you'd either make an excuse not to show up or you'd send someone else to do it and fail for you.

"We would all show up"

Damn Beccs, now that's GANGSTA

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: No, you didn't provide any such thing. You provided a group of texts, some forged and all non-contemporary.

One was forged...and as far as contemporary, Paul was contemporary...and those "texts" confirm what the contemporary source in Paul said...that Jesus existed.

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: Saying these texts are good evidence because a majority of people/historians/martians/PHDs say so is a fallacy. A majority of doctors once believed disease was called by bad smells. They were experts. So?

You just realized you've just shot the entire genre of history in the ass with that statement, right?

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: Uh uh. A man with preconceived and dearly held beliefs about an issue is unlikely to objectively analyze that issue. Theologians and apologists (is that one catagory or two?) are definitionaly believers. They look at the texts within the context of belief and objectively.

Nonsense. I have no desire to be a Muslim and I think the entire Islamic religion is one big bootleg version of Christianity. I don't believe in the Muslim God Allah at all.

But I have no problem believing that Mohammed, the "prophet", existed. I am not a Muslim and I don't give two shits about Islam, so you can't say that I have any preconceived notions or biases in favor of Islam or Mohammed. The question is, where does the historical evidence point??

The point is, whether Christian or non-Christian, if you look at the evidence for Jesus OVERALL, you should be able to, at the very least, determine that Jesus the man existed.

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: If you are going to quote me, quote me. Don't remove the substance of what I said. I said that a man who is so wrapped up in believing in Jesus that he would believe in the resurrection even if he went back in time and saw that it did not happen, is not a historian with regard to Jesus. William Lane Craig is not a historian. He is an apologist of the most absurd form, nothing more.

Point?

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: How did the question of God's existence creep in here. We are talking about whether a man who would still believe in the resurrection even if he had absolute proof of the contrary is fit to make a scholarly determination about the existence of Jesus. He is not.

Because, even if Jesus' existence was proven to be false, the traditional arguments theists use for God would still stand. That is the only point I was making.

(November 30, 2014 at 12:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: Go on if you're going to. But if you think you will win by shear volume of posts you're mistaken. Substance is the only way to win. You don't seem to be very good at substance.

I was going to say the same thing about you.