Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

Lack of me caring about your opinion of my spelling or grammar in English (my fourth language) and simply linking me to your weak sauce articles were you engage in literary masturbation. Your off to a flying start .

No you posted a bullshit piece of literal salve from the scorching Carrier gave you .And i have already read articles on your shitty little site ages ago i needed a good laugh and you did not disappoint  .You have been repeating the same Anti Mythicism nonsense forever. Give it up dude your the Michael Behe of Anti Mythicism .

"Weak sauce articles .... literary masturbation .... bullshit piece .... your shitty little site .... Anti Mythicism nonsense"

All asserted without any supporting argument or engagement with anything I've actually said. It seems this level of gassy flatulence is about all we're going to get from you. So, another mighty blow is struck for "rationalism" ...  

Is there anyone here actually capable of detailed discussion based on the relevant source material? Or just coherent sentences?

The only support i require is your article a Carriers they both stand a testaments to your inadequacy and as for engagement i pretty sure responding is engagement . As for rationalism you would not know it if it bite you on the ass . 

Is there anyone here who can actually defend Timmy's nonsense or at least do something aside saying "your spelling sucks i win "

---

No other historians use it the way he does. What does that tell you? Bayes' Theorem only works if you have objective, real world data to plug into it. It can't be used to assess whether something happened in the past by giving your prior qualitative assessments of likelihood a number and then putting that into the Theorem. That tells you nothing. It's all smoke and mirrors that no-one except Carrier and his peanut gallery of clueless fanboys takes seriously.

Yes they do regardless of what you and your feckless cheerleaders say .

---

Then so is the above, we can judge him a crank without ever looking at his work. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

What the hell are you on about?

---

@Succubus No I got that. I read the article as well. I just thought since it was a little OT maybe it deserved its own thread.


To be fair, I did say I wanted to compare and contrast views on the topic.

But you already know one side of the argument....now you need to learn the facts.

You should  listen to Bishop Warburton.... who knew in the late 18th century.

“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”

Watch out Min Timmy's here to destroy us dumb "new atheists " with his super duper historian powers .