"You did not include the qualifier ("a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:") with the list that you posted."
ONCE AGAIN. I said this:
"On the other hand, I have shown several reasons why the historicity of Jesus (the God-Man) ought to be considered in the strongest possible doubt. I repeated to you the compelling list of historians (from Remsberg) and remarked on the incredible fact that none of them were aware of events which are purported to be unique in all of history and widely observed.
Now, notice the bolded words? Do you see anywhere that I have stated that this list of historians were men, or women, or residents of Athens, or married, or single, or Roman, or Jewish, or born before or after anno domini, or anything else? No, you don't. Because I did not claim any of these things. You, however, called me stupid and ignorant of history on the basis that I thought that all these people lived at the time of Jesus. But I DID NOT think that. And I DID NOT say that.
As I said before: your attack and your insults were based on your own stupidity and meanness. The ONLY information I stated was that they came from Remsberg's list to which I had given the link, and that they were historians who were not aware of "events which are purported to be unique in all of history and widely observed".
"events which are purported to be unique in all of history and widely observed" is not a claim that they (the list of historians) were all contemporaries of Jesus, or anybody else. And Remsberg explicitly disclaims that they were all alive when Jesus was reputed to be living. So your attack on me (and your rather stupid, bothersome, and beetleheaded follow-up) was unkind, untrue, and entirely ignorant. Whether or not you are being intentionally obtuse, I cannot say with assurance. The sidewalk could tilt either way.
"As soon as any one disagrees with you they become "DUH" a moron."
Hardly. Morons are wont to hoist themselves by their own petard-- just as you have done. Disagreement is not a character flaw--nor necessarily an intellectual failing. But repeated inability to understand the simplistic--and repeated attacks which are just ignorant spewings (see my analysis above)--certainly reflect on the character, the intellect, or both.
Message 19887869
"you are dogmatically asserting the position that NO historical evidence for the existence of the person of Jesus Christ exists. Jumping from one specific to another without qualification, demonstrates that it is you that is engaging in "misstatement, misdirection, and outright deceit"."
The only reason I "jumped" anywhere was in response to your games. When a person brings something up (no matter how misleading or off-topic) I respond to it. Look at the time I have wasted on exposing your repeated misrepresentations?
When you tried to find ONE historical reference to Jesus (Tacitus) I gave a patient summary of objections that it was a Christian interpolation (I believe it was 14 points, wasn't it). You could have tackled ANY one of the points if you were serious about salvaging your position that the Tacitus statement showed that Christianity had a connection to a Christus (although that would still say nothing about the existence of miracles and the like, as I said), but instead you continued to fling dung all over the place. I called you on it. Live with it!
"As far as historians go you need to find one that was writing and recording the specific events in Israel at the time of Jesus and the apostles and that they had no knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth or his followers"
NO. Your argument is fallacious in the extreme--entirely without logic. YOU need to find one--ANYWHERE in the world--who DID have knowledge of Jesus, his followers, and His earth-shattering miracles and exploits! |
