Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Conclusion:

You're fucking insane.

Dismissed.

/*plonk*/

Back in my killfile you go.  You have nothing of substance to offer other than a few lulz watching you incompetently assert pure bollocks.

And given that you apparently are unwilling to actually produce these alleged secular scholars, we can conclude that Min is right, you only vet the opinions of religious fucks, and your supposed secular/religious consensus is a sham.

Yeah? No.

You're trolling in defense of Min, because no one can be so stupid as to even attempt the indefensible, right? And now that you've been demonstrated to be 100% incapable/unwilling of interpreting such a simple and obvious post of mine correctly, all that remains etched in stone here is the legacy of your incompetence, whether that be merely trolling ... or brain-farting yourself into oblivion.

It's hilarious!

[Dānu]

/*plonk*/

Back in my killfile you go.  You have nothing of substance to offer other than a few lulz watching you incompetently assert pure bollocks.

And given that you apparently are unwilling to actually produce these alleged secular scholars, we can conclude that Min is right, you only vet the opinions of religious fucks, and your supposed secular/religious consensus is a sham.

Yeah? No.

And now that you've been demonstrated to be 100% incapable/unwilling of interpreting such a simple and obvious post of mine correctly... blah blah blah.

Yeah, no, it wasn't your post whose interpretation I disagreed with you on but Min's, so you can't get even basic facts correct. Lol. Thanks for the lulz!

Oh, and thanks for proving Min correct. That's just icing on the cake!

[Free]

Yeah? No.

And now that you've been demonstrated to be 100% incapable/unwilling of interpreting such a simple and obvious post of mine correctly... blah blah blah.

Yeah, no, it wasn't your post whose interpretation I disagreed with you on but Min's, so you can't get even basic facts correct.  Lol.  Thanks for the lulz!

Oh, and thanks for proving Min correct.  That's just icing on the cake!

This just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? Here in this post you said you disagreed with me on interpreting Min's post, but can't interpret Min's post well enough to to posit any semblance of salvaging it in his defense.

Your interpretation is nonsensical and a pathetic attempt to rescue his credulity.

[Dānu]

Yeah, no, it wasn't your post whose interpretation I disagreed with you on but Min's, so you can't get even basic facts correct.  Lol.  Thanks for the lulz!

Oh, and thanks for proving Min correct.  That's just icing on the cake!

This just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? Here in this post you said you disagreed with me on interpreting Min's post, but can't interpret Min's post well enough to to posit any semblance of salvaging it in his defense.

Your interpretation is nonsensical and a pathetic attempt to rescue his credulity.

Swell. Whatever works for you. I'll simply switch my attention to someone with a modicum of actual competence. Have a nice day!

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla

....something to think about.....

Nope. Yet another POS to dismiss as unsupported fictitious speculation.

So then, .... you are clearly unable to post any evidence for anything you claim.
That's what I figured ... including any evidence for your (unsupported *claims*) concerning the "temple rip-off".
Your approach is no different than a Fundamentalist.

The verses "tell us" nothing. The basics concerning the nature of a "gospel" elude you, as you have no education on the subject.
The gospels are not history. They are a reflection of what, many years later, some communities believed. They are not factual.

[Free]

This just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? Here in this post you said you disagreed with me on interpreting Min's post, but can't interpret Min's post well enough to to posit any semblance of salvaging it in his defense.

Your interpretation is nonsensical and a pathetic attempt to rescue his credulity.

Swell.  Whatever works for you.   I'll simply switch my attention to someone with a modicum of actual competence.  Have a nice day!

Let me show you someone without a modicum of actual competence. You said earlier:

Okay.  Min confused the argument about secular vs. religious scholars with your argument with Inkubus in which Inkubus was disputing your reply as a list of theologians.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid368844

That is false, and all of your arguments since then have been based upon that false interpretation. 

Min did not confuse the argument I was having with Ink. 

Not. At. All.

Min spoke directly to me in accordance to what I was saying and anything Ink said was not involved. This shows you don't have a lot of experience following Min, since he rarely quotes who he's speaking to. But he and I have been at it for years, and I understand his posting method.

Thank you, and have a nice day now!

[Dānu]

Swell.  Whatever works for you.   I'll simply switch my attention to someone with a modicum of actual competence.  Have a nice day!

Let me show you someone without a modicum of actual competence. You said earlier:

Okay.  Min confused the argument about secular vs. religious scholars with your argument with Inkubus in which Inkubus was disputing your reply as a list of theologians.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid368844

That is false, and all of your arguments since then have been based upon that false interpretation. 

Min did not confuse the argument I was having with Ink. 

Not. At. All.

Min spoke directly to me in accordance to what I was saying and anything Ink said was not involved. This shows you don't have a lot of experience following Min, since he rarely quotes who he's speaking to. But he and I have been at it for years, and I understand his posting method.

Thank you, and have a nice day now!

A wise man would stop digging.  I'm guessing you must have a really small penis.

[Free]

Let me show you someone without a modicum of actual competence. You said earlier:



https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid368844

That is false, and all of your arguments since then have been based upon that false interpretation. 

Min did not confuse the argument I was having with Ink. 

Not. At. All.

Min spoke directly to me in accordance to what I was saying and anything Ink said was not involved. This shows you don't have a lot of experience following Min, since he rarely quotes who he's speaking to. But he and I have been at it for years, and I understand his posting method.

Thank you, and have a nice day now!

A wise man would stop digging.  I'm guessing you must have a really small penis.

Please stop expressing an interest in my penis. 

Some people's kids these days ...

[Dānu]

A wise man would stop digging.  I'm guessing you must have a really small penis.

Please stop expressing an interest in my penis. 

Some people's kids these days ...

Wow. You must really crave attention bad.

[Free]

Please stop expressing an interest in my penis. 

Some people's kids these days ...

Wow.  You must really crave attention bad.

Not from you, so leave my penis alone.

[Minimalist]

Jesus Fucking Christ....can't you people stay on the topic?

 

Free's right.  All I said to Ink was that I thought his calling those people "liars" was a bridge too far.  They are conditioned to accept this holy horseshit because they are "theologians" first and foremost and they are always looking for confirmation for their nonsense.  That is the basis for my disagreement with Free, which I'll get back to sooner or later ( busy week coming up - the puppies are being moved to their permanent homes on Saturday) but for now let's be clear that there are instances where theologians CAN show some academic integrity as this passage from William G Dever's book illustrates.  The issue involved was the insistance by so-called "biblical archaeologists" that they had evidence for Joshua's Conquest at the city of Ai.  To make a long story short, Dever recounts the work of American "archaeologist" but also Southern Baptist Theology Professor, Joseph Callaway.  Callaway supported the findings of earlier archaeologists who had determined that "Ai" had been abandoned for 1,000 years when "Joshua" supposedly conquered it!  The real key is the final sentence in Dever's report.  Callaway had the integrity not to be a two-faced bastard.

[Free]

Jesus Fucking Christ....can't you people stay on the topic?

 

Free's right.  All I said to Ink was that I thought his calling those people "liars" was a bridge too far.  They are conditioned to accept this holy horseshit because they are "theologians" first and foremost and they are always looking for confirmation for their nonsense.  That is the basis for my disagreement with Free, which I'll get back to sooner or later ( busy week coming up - the puppies are being moved to their permanent homes on Saturday) but for now let's be clear that there are instances where theologians CAN show some academic integrity as this passage from William G Dever's book illustrates.  The issue involved was the insistance by so-called "biblical archaeologists" that they had evidence for Joshua's Conquest at the city of Ai.  To make a long story short, Dever recounts the work of American "archaeologist" but also Southern Baptist Theology Professor, Joseph Callaway.  Callaway supported the findings of earlier archaeologists who had determined that "Ai" had been abandoned for 1,000 years when "Joshua" supposedly conquered it!  The real key is the final sentence in Dever's report.  Callaway had the integrity not to be a two-faced bastard.

It's okay, I can let it slide with her. We all make mistakes ... as long as it was just an honest mistake instead of a troll attempt.

Shown below is a quick link back to the response I gave to you in the event you have time to get back to replying to it.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid368672

[Minimalist]

Thanks for that link, I did miss that.

"Your bias is showing, Min. You intentionally chose to ignore the true qualifications of Vermes, and we can conclude you did it with them all. "


And you refuse to see that these people have a built in bias to see what they want.

Let me try this again....ONE MORE TIME.

I don't give a flying fuck what any of these so-called "experts" claim.  You can tell me that they shit golden turds and it doesn't matter.  All of them make their living by maintaining that some of this holy horseshit is true and writing books for idiots who are desperate to believe it.  What they agree on seems to vary quite a bit but goddamn it they know that there was some asshole named "jesus" who got himself killed.  They know this BECAUSE THEY READ IT IN THE FUCKING GOSPELS.  It exists no where else.  (Paul, even if that shit were real, knows fuck-all about the crucifixion story as it later developed.)  They dismiss all the miracle stories - or make excuses for them.  They ignore the obvious tie-ins to Greek philosophy which pre-date jesus' teachings by several centuries.  They ignore the historical anomalies.  But, the one thing they cling to like hungry squirrels with the last acorn on earth is that jesus really, really, really, was crucified by Pilate...although I don't think they agree on the date.  What makes that claim so special? I doubt you will find many of them who are ready to accept the resurrection story or that jesus flew up to heaven.  Why can you not see the cherry-picking?

[Free]

Thanks for that link, I did miss that.

"Your bias is showing, Min. You intentionally chose to ignore the true qualifications of Vermes, and we can conclude you did it with them all. "


And you refuse to see that these people have a built in bias to see what they want.

Let me try this again....ONE MORE TIME.

I don't give a flying fuck what any of these so-called "experts" claim.  You can tell me that they shit golden turds and it doesn't matter.  All of them make their living by maintaining that some of this holy horseshit is true and writing books for idiots who are desperate to believe it.  What they agree on seems to vary quite a bit but goddamn it they know that there was some asshole named "jesus" who got himself killed.  They know this BECAUSE THEY READ IT IN THE FUCKING GOSPELS.  It exists no where else.  (Paul, even if that shit were real,  knows fuck-all about the crucifixion story as it later developed.)  They dismiss all the miracle stories - or make excuses for them.  They ignore the obvious tie-ins to Greek philosophy which pre-date jesus' teachings by several centuries.  They ignore the historical anomalies.  But, the one thing they cling to like hungry squirrels with the last acorn on earth is that jesus really, really, really, was crucified by Pilate...although I don't think they agree on the date.  What makes that claim so special? I doubt you will find many of them who are ready to accept the resurrection story or that jesus flew up to heaven.  Why can you not see the cherry-picking?

And my point remains that those who you consider theologically biased must employ the exact same evidence and reasoning as the secularists in their assessments of historicity, so that even if they were not biased theists the result would still favor historicity with them.

The evidence and reasoning of the theists is precisely the same as the secularists to favor historicity. The only difference between the theists and the secularists is that the secularist will not make an absolutely positive claim of 100% existence, where some theists will. That is the only area where their bias creeps in; the positive claim of 100% as opposed to as assessment that leaves room for error.

In the end though, they all favor historicity regardless of bias. All the evidence does for the theists is increase their bias, as opposed to their bias distorting the evidence.

[Dānu]

That is the basis for my disagreement with Free, which I'll get back to sooner or later

So, in other words, nothing to do with you disputing Free calling them historians. Yah. I feel duly chastised now.

[Free]

That is the basis for my disagreement with Free, which I'll get back to sooner or later

So, in other words, nothing to do with you disputing Free calling them historians.  Yah.  I feel duly chastised now.

You're just misunderstanding the conversation. That's it. That's all. Let it go.

[Minimalist]

All the evidence does for the theists is increase their bias

The "evidence" is nothing but 2d-3d century religious propaganda.  They believe it, or profess to, because it suits them.

Nothing is going to change that barring some amazing future discovery.... which does not turn out to be another fraud.

[Free]

All the evidence does for the theists is increase their bias

The "evidence" is nothing but 2d-3d century religious propaganda.  They believe it, or profess to, because it suits them.

Nothing is going to change that barring some amazing future discovery.... which does not turn out to be another fraud.

Except what Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Trajan and numerous others have said has never been even adequately disputed as being a fraud. Handwaving this away is insufficient to merit a credible argument.

[Dānu]

So, in other words, nothing to do with you disputing Free calling them historians.  Yah.  I feel duly chastised now.

You're just misunderstanding the conversation. That's it. That's all. Let it go.

You are gullible. Min is just waxing your knob. But by all means, prove otherwise by asking him to admit he was wrong. I'll wait. And if he does, I'll acknowledge that I was wrong.

[Free]

You're just misunderstanding the conversation. That's it. That's all. Let it go.

You are gullible.  Min is just waxing your knob.  But by all means, prove otherwise by asking him to admit he was wrong.  I'll wait.  And if he does, I'll acknowledge that I was wrong.

So ... you start this by accusing me of misunderstanding Min, and then when Min comes in and tells you I got it right, you then deride him and continue this frivolous argument with me?

Is your pride that important to you?

[Dānu]

You are gullible.  Min is just waxing your knob.  But by all means, prove otherwise by asking him to admit he was wrong.  I'll wait.  And if he does, I'll acknowledge that I was wrong.

So ... you start this by accusing me of misunderstanding Min, and then when Min comes in and tells you I got it right, you then deride him and continue this frivolous argument with me?

Is your pride that important to you?

Haha. You got no balls, Free. Enjoy your supposed victory. Shame you're too much of a coward to put it to the test. See you round, cowgirl.

[Free]

So ... you start this by accusing me of misunderstanding Min, and then when Min comes in and tells you I got it right, you then deride him and continue this frivolous argument with me?

Is your pride that important to you?

Haha.  You got no balls, Free.  Enjoy your supposed victory.  Shame you're too much of a coward to put it to the test.  See you round, cowgirl.

It's not about me having any kind of victory. That is not about you vs me.

This is all about you vs you.

And only you can win or lose.

[Dānu]

Haha.  You got no balls, Free.  Enjoy your supposed victory.  Shame you're too much of a coward to put it to the test.  See you round, cowgirl.

It's not about me having any kind of victory. That is not about you vs me.

This is all about you vs you.

And only you can win or lose.

Thanks, Yoda. Next time I need some Hallmark wisdom I'll know just where to turn.

[Free]

It's not about me having any kind of victory. That is not about you vs me.

This is all about you vs you.

And only you can win or lose.

Thanks, Yoda.  Next time I need some Hallmark wisdom I'll know just where to turn.

You're very welcome, and I want you to know that I care enough to send the very best!

[Minimalist]

The "evidence" is nothing but 2d-3d century religious propaganda.  They believe it, or profess to, because it suits them.

Nothing is going to change that barring some amazing future discovery.... which does not turn out to be another fraud.

Except what Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Trajan and numerous others have said has never been even adequately disputed as being a fraud. Handwaving this away is insufficient to merit a credible argument.

None of them ever heard of any fucking "jesus."  They heard of Chrestus ( or Christos ) We know there were scattered groups worshiping various savior gods and Pliny states that he questioned one group of them under torture in some cases.... but none of them thought to mention this jesus fucker.  Now, I fully understand that you are prepared to overlook such a glaring omission.

I am not.