Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Fact: something demonstrated or known to have occurred”
“Fact: something demonstrated or known to have occurred”
yep..... and it is not a fact that jesus even existed let alone did those things you claim.
Quote:
“And that is the judgement of the scholars you dislike in favor of your fringe theory that offers nothing to history.”
“And that is the judgement of the scholars you dislike in favor of your fringe theory that offers nothing to history.”
thats OPINION.... not 'fact'. it cannot be demonstrated as there is no evidence, that jesus existed. its all conjecture.
Quote:
“Posters have already shown where you are wrong. Ehrman wrote an entire book about the historical evidence for Jesus.”
“Posters have already shown where you are wrong. Ehrman wrote an entire book about the historical evidence for Jesus.”
hiding behind scholars again, ehrman might believe jesus existed but he cannot prove it.
Quote:
“Yet you continue to ignore all the evidence, not read the books, or read parts and misquote them, so what is a poster to do?”
“Yet you continue to ignore all the evidence, not read the books, or read parts and misquote them, so what is a poster to do?”
WHAT evidence?.... there is NO evidence that doesnt come from a biased, dated, uncorroborated source.
IF jesus is a man made construct, then so is the bible, it cannot be demonstrated that any of it is true!
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Who is Erhman hiding behind?
How about just using scholarship and forgoing catch phrases like waffle, silence (where there is no silence) and
hiding behind a very biased atheist blog that quotes people from 1919?
You can't reasonably "think for yourself" on a subject that requires a great deal of education, knowledge of antiquity and language of Jesus' time, and research.
Yes, you can read the research and make up your own mind, but you are clearly not familiar with the research.
What is not clear about agnostic atheists agreeing that Jesus existed?”
“Who is Erhman hiding behind?
How about just using scholarship and forgoing catch phrases like waffle, silence (where there is no silence) and
hiding behind a very biased atheist blog that quotes people from 1919?
You can't reasonably "think for yourself" on a subject that requires a great deal of education, knowledge of antiquity and language of Jesus' time, and research.
Yes, you can read the research and make up your own mind, but you are clearly not familiar with the research.
What is not clear about agnostic atheists agreeing that Jesus existed?”
waffle, waffle and more meaningless waffle.
your problem is that you dont know the difference between fact, opinion, conjucture.
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Your problem is that you quote other posts but you don't actually read them and consider what they say.”
“Your problem is that you quote other posts but you don't actually read them and consider what they say.”
you mean i dont accept the strength of 'evidence' produced. thats because its not compelling, its doesnt explain anything in a reasoned and logical way.
what was presented has been woolly excuses, 'ifs' and 'buts' , they take a stretch of the imagination to believe, are half cocked, are not supported, are unreasonable, simply do not answer the questions posed adequately.
my problem isnt that, its that i still dont get reasoned, adequate, killer answers.





