Did Jesus Actually Exist?

No, because the Channel Islands, part of the lost Duchy Normandy, remained a self-governing possession of the English Crown ...

Is that the reason? Still, Jersey and Guernesey aren't equal to "Normandy".

Theyre all part of Doggerland.

I don't think the channel islands have that much of a reputation for dogging, you're thinking of Essex.

That is the reason. And they were (!) part of the Duchy of Normandy. (Elisabeth II is Duke [sic!] of Normandy and Lord [sic!] of Man.)

It's actually "Plymouth"

Right. And now they are major tax evasion heavens / pirate islands. Maybe we should wage war to reclaim them after all.

Maybe you should do something about Monaco and Luxembourg first.

Yeah, those too. Switzerland next...

Austria, Italy and Bavaria will all go to war with you over that.

Of course not. They'll join us to share the spoils.

yea seriously though.

If you don't know Origen you need to educate yourself.

I have read about the guy. Why are you bringing him up?

"I have read about the guy. Why are you bringing him up? "

You did

Page 1 of the topic: """@Setanta,
LOL. That from the person who wrote: "If you don't know who Origen was, i suggest that you educate yourself."

Pot, kettle, etc."""

And all of page 32.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/215173-1#post-5340353

I thought that was funny so I repeated it.

Read the topic before pretending to be people.

Btw, Not your nut job.

I suggested that you educate yourself about Origen because he created the modern christian cannon, the texts which would be considered the authorized accounts. You can consider that a sneer if you wish, or you could educated yourself so that you know what the hell you're talking about before you shoot your snotty mouth off.

This one is worth hearing !

It is worth noting that the reliability of Wikipedia with regard to the historicity of Jesus, early church history, the writings of Flavius Josephus and the writings of Tacitus is not to be relied upon. In May, 2013, when this discussion began, i was not yet aware that articles on those topics were being routinely vandalized. It was only later when i went these looking for a Feldman reference that i noted gross errors in the text (such as that the letter from Trajan to Pliny is evidence of the historicity of Jesus, which it most assuredly is not--Trajan doesn't mention Jesus in that letter, nor, for that matter, had Pliny mentioned Jesus in his original letter to Trajan). I then looked down at the bottom of th page and saw that the article had last been edited in February, 2013.

Since that time, there has been a sort of guerilla war going on over these topids at Wikipedia. The editorial staff will restore the original articles, and soon thereafter, they will be vandalized again. If you go to the article on the historicity of Jesus, you will see this at the bottom of the page: "This page was last modified on 8 July 2014 at 14:26." Obviously, the christian textual terrorists are still at it. At the top of the page is this announcement:



Therefore, i have come to the conclusion that as long as this group of christians continue to vandalize the Wikipedia articles, they cannot be considered reliablew source for these topics.

That assumes I don't know who Origen is...

I did assume that, more than a year ago. My experience of you is that you are a shallow know it all. That you profess all sorts of knowledge that you don't actually possess. You come here and argue for argument's sake, and not because you necessarily know anything about the topic. My contempt for you has reached the point that i no longer care what you think, nor how you reply nor if you reply.

Ouch! That cuts deep, boss...