Did Jesus Actually Exist?

The thing is, you apply your own definition of scholar so you can dismiss sources when presented to you.

That is simply not true. It is just an excuse spread by my opponents because they KNOW they cannot find that elusive scholar. None of them has tried to define what a qualified scholar would be.

Instead, Timur has shared names of people who were either long dead, or novelists and pundits, or scholars who never doubted the historicity of jesus. Cheap tricks by cheap posters.

Why don't YOU give it a try? How would you describe a competent scholar on Jesus, or Shakespeare for that matter? They all shied away from that challenge.


PS: After all, I DID find a scholar doubting Jesus' historicity, Carrier, and wrote about him here... What I asked my opponents to do, I have already done, so it's not impossible. And if my intent was to hide the truth, I would not have mentioned him.

I'm not arguing with you.

You are arguing with me; you're just not making a very good job at it.

Probably because it's not worth the effort.

Guess it depends what you expect out of the effort... If the only reason you are a doubter is to piss off fundies, you are right that it won't work with me... :-)

On the other hand, if you want to learn something, you might possibly succeed.

As for me, I'm starting to wonder if A2K Jesus deniers have anything remotely factual to say... Apparently not.

Sounds like somebody thinks Shakespeare was recording history. I don't claim to know whether or not he was a historical person, but I'm pretty clear that everybody understood Othello was fiction from the beginning. Clearly a false analogy.

Point out where I posted anything that suggests Shakespeare recorded history, as opposed to saying there was documentary evidence that Shakespeare actually existed.

Looks to me like someone has comprehension problems.

Mea culpa, I should have made it clear that I was agreeing with you. My comment was about Ollie. I've got him on Ignore, so the only time I see anything he writes, it's when someone else quotes him.

Fair enough, I appreciate that.

I never said Shakespeare recorded history... But whatever. One more tangent.

I was just agreeing with FBM (and you) that the question of Jesus historicity was trivial. But apparently nobody can be seen to agree with the big bad wolf...

No, more like the little weasel.

You have the crappiest logic in matters of historicity.

That's not because you twist things around that it makes your arguments more sound.

You are the big liar..

Talk about weasel and see his tail...

You are a big liar.

Put your money where your mouth is...

Looks like another case of the troll giving himself a big O via premature self-congratulation.

T'es qu'un triste con, Timur, un imbécile malheureux.

My job IS done here in the sense that I have achieved my objectives. I'm just sticking around to make sure it doesn't get undone by some irrational, aggressive denier or another.

After all, Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Encyclopedia Universalis, and I suspect all other respectable repositories of knowledge AGREE WITH ME on this, as anyone can easily verify. Or rather I agree with them and with the scientific consensus on Jesus. You guys are at the fringe. I am the knight protecting the castle of knowledge from the hordes of hyper-doubters.... :-)

He has been doing so from the beginning..

Again, you are a clear case of the highest hypocrisy.

You were the one who was complaining about verbal abuse, now you are spewing insults in French!

Are you afraid that the English speakers know what you are saying, showing your true nature?

No, you are not, far from it, a white knight.

You are defending the obscurantism of the ages, like the church has been doing for centuries.

You are licking the ass of the establishment.

The historicity of Jesus is being contested, a lot more everyday.

A time will come soon when the earth will cease to be flat.

Yup. It's a pretty common rhetorical tactic among that sort, self-aggrandizement. Masturbatory, really, if you think about it.

You've insulted me day in and day out here. Why? Is it because you want to be taken as a cogent poster, or because you want to piss me off and get insulted back?

I just gave you what you wanted, and guessed you'd enjoy the French insults better. I find my English insults lame. In French they come out much nicer.