Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Phaedrus]

We do have evidence of the existence of human beings.

Of human beings, certainly, yet to not be confused with a single human being with whom you are so gloriously in love.

[Free]

We do have evidence of the existence of human beings.

Of human beings, certainly, yet to not be confused with a single human being with whom you are so gloriously in love.

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

[madog]

We do have evidence of the existence of human beings.

Of human beings, certainly, yet to not be confused with a single human being with whom you are so gloriously in love.

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

If we used your methology much more than that there was a 'Jesus' 

[Phaedrus]

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

Your continual insistence that he had to have existed, of course.

[Free]

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

Your continual insistence that he had to have existed, of course.

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

[Phaedrus]

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

You're allowed your bias, so long as you are aware that is what it is.

[Free]

Of human beings, certainly, yet to not be confused with a single human being with whom you are so gloriously in love.

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

If we used your methology much more than that there was a 'Jesus' 

^^^ An obvious senseless and meaningless assertion.

Desperation has clearly set in!

[madog]

@Free

I'm still waiting for the evidence for your positive claim that Christians invented the spelling of Christians ...

The name of the inventor will do, as I know you don't like showing your apparent evidence  ... I can look the inventor up on Google if he exists 

[Free]

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

You're allowed your bias, so long as you are aware that is what it is.  

The evidence speaks for itself, not only to me, but to countless professional historians both faithful and secular. Using your reasoning, every last historian within the consensus must be bias, right? Not one of them cannot be, right?

[Phaedrus]

The evidence speaks for itself

The same is stated for that which is in opposition to your bias.

[madog]

And what evidence do you have that indicates that I am in any way "gloriously in love" with this Jesus fellow?

Your continual insistence that he had to have existed, of course.

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

Arguments and claims are all well and good, but you also need evidence ... AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THAT 

[Free]

@Free

I'm still waiting for the evidence for your positive claim that Christians invented the spelling of Christians ...

The name of the inventor will do, as I know you don't like showing your apparent evidence  ... I can look the inventor up on Google if he exists 

It's been given, and you're ignoring it. You won't even address it.

[Free]

Your continual insistence that he had to have existed, of course.

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

Arguments and claims are all well and good, but you also need evidence ... AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THAT 

The evidence I provided is considered to be highly relevant among professional historians. What is not relevant is your uneducated view of it.

[madog]

@Free

I'm still waiting for the evidence for your positive claim that Christians invented the spelling of Christians ...

The name of the inventor will do, as I know you don't like showing your apparent evidence  ... I can look the inventor up on Google if he exists 

It's been given, and you're ignoring it. You won't even address it.

If thats true, then score an easy point and show it again ..... thought so 

[Phaedrus]

It's been given, and you're ignoring it. You won't even address it.

Kind of similar to you not addressing the evidence opposed to your bias.

[madog]

You mean my continued insistence that the argument for his existence is a better argument than for his non-existence, right?

I'm giving you a chance here.

Arguments and claims are all well and good, but you also need evidence ... AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THAT 

The evidence I provided is considered to be highly relevant among professional historians. What is not relevant is your uneducated view of it.

After 30 odd pages you could be referring to anything  ... dickhead  .... if you have evidence that Christians invented the spelling Christian supply the evidence or a link  

[Free]

It's been given, and you're ignoring it. You won't even address it.

Kind of similar to you not addressing the evidence opposed to your bias.

There is no bias on my part.

There's certainly bias on yours, madog, and Minimalist, which likely comes from cognitive dissonance.

[Free]

Arguments and claims are all well and good, but you also need evidence ... AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THAT 

The evidence I provided is considered to be highly relevant among professional historians. What is not relevant is your uneducated view of it.

After 30 odd pages you could be referring to anything  ... dickhead  .... if you have evidence that Christians invented the spelling Christian supply the evidence or a link  

1 page ago, dude.

[Phaedrus]

There is no bias on my part.

There's certainly bias on yours, madog, and Minimalist, which likely comes from cognitive dissonance.

Glad to finally be included into the intelligent group, since you left my name out last time.

Furthermore, your bias shines as bright as a twink's flame.

[madog]

It's been given, and you're ignoring it. You won't even address it.

Kind of similar to you not addressing the evidence opposed to your bias.

There is no bias on my part.

There's certainly bias on yours, madog, and Minimalist, which likely comes from cognitive dissonance.

You projecting again, did my pointing out your "cognitive dissonance" hit a nerve?

[Free]

 
Can you back that up?  ... another one of your blind assertions 

You state "the Christians invented the spelling "Christian""  .... Show how you know this and what evidence you rely on ? (hint anything after the very early 2nd century will fail )

Again, I already have. I have shown you and others in this thread numerous times ancient texts about how the Christians complained to non-Christians about their mispronouncing/misspelling "Christian" as "Chrestian," which incidentally flew right over your head as evidence that the non-Christian populace called them Chrestians.

But ... of course you will deny this!

Because someone complains how someone else pronounces a words has absoluteley no evidential value as to who invented the word ...

Your faulty logic is showing.

If the non-Christians called them "Chrestians," then obviously "Christian" wasn't a designation by non-Christians.

1 + 1 = 2.

It's not rocket science.

[Phaedrus]

Your faulty logic is showing.

If the non-Christians called them "Chrestians," then obviously it wasn't a designation by non-Christians.

1 + 1 = 2.

It's not rocket science.

You have been educated on the etymology, yet you still want to feign ignorance on the basis of bias.

[Free]

Your faulty logic is showing.

If the non-Christians called them "Chrestians," then obviously it wasn't a designation by non-Christians.

1 + 1 = 2.

It's not rocket science.

You have been educated on the etymology, yet you still want to feign ignorance on the basis of bias.

This is just an obvious attempt to distract, as no evidence of bias can be produced.

You, sir, are DISMISSED!

[madog]

The evidence I provided is considered to be highly relevant among professional historians. What is not relevant is your uneducated view of it.

After 30 odd pages you could be referring to anything  ... dickhead  .... if you have evidence that Christians invented the spelling Christian supply the evidence or a link  

1 page ago, dude.

Are you referring to this?

Free wrote:

Again, I already have. I have shown you and others in this thread numerous times ancient texts about how the Christians complained to non-Christians about their mispronouncing/misspelling "Christian" as "Chrestian," which incidentally flew right over your head as evidence that the non-Christian populace called them Chrestians.

Are you again referring to your own words as evidence?

As none of the texts, I'm assuming you are referring to, indicate the inventor of the spelling of Christians.

[Phaedrus]

This is just an obvious attempt to distract, as no evidence of bias can be produced.

You, sir, are DISMISSED!

I will take that as a win on my part, since you cannot handle all that is the truth I offer.