JESUS LOVES YOU!!!!!!!

[PastorKyle]

Greeting fellow Christian,
I'm new to this server and I have decided to help spread the love of Jesus. I hope we get to know each other and be able to share the love of our love with the son of man.

I love you because Jesus Loves you,
Kyle Schultz - Pastor @ Baptist Church in Ohio :D

Greetings Heretic,
You deny the fact that Jesus never died for your sins, well you are wrong and will burn in hell for eternity if you do not repent for your sins. I DEMAND YOU PRAY TO THE FATHER PRAY TO THE SON AND PRAY TO THE HOLY GHOST, for you shall surely burn in hell. You claim the bible isnt fact, well than tell me this WHO CREATED YOU? WHO LOVES YOU SO MUCH HE GAVE HIS ONLY SON FOR YOU? You know the anwser and I know you know the anwser too. You fail to see past your liberal democratic lies, lies that will cost you eternity in the gnashing of the teeth, GNASHING !!!!!!!!!!!! REPENT COME TO JESUS FOR WITH OUT IT YOU'RE NOTHING. REPENT OF THE LIBERAL LIES, REPENT OF YOUR SINS!

Jesus still loves you, but I refuse to look you in the eye because you're a bad person
Kyle Schultz - Pastor @ Baptist Church in Ohio :angry:

[Y]

You're headed to Insane.

EDIT:

Now that we're in Insane: Fuck Jesus.

[DHX]

Unnf

[Tsosczb]

DBZ fans don't like jesus?

[Y]

http://jesuswasaterrorist.com/images/Procreat.jpg

[Conexion]

Originally posted by Y@Sep 8 2004, 09:51 PM
http://jesuswasaterrorist.com/images/Procreat.jpg
Man, I'm a christian and that still made me laugh :lol:

--

'PastorKyle'... uh, heya? I'm guessin this might be a double account, but meh, my mod tools are teh suxx0rz.

[Y]

I don't think Silver has another account here.

[mstretton]

Good thing this is in insane because what you are saying about Jesus is insane, so are those pictures and the people who are posting them (ie: you)

You would NEVER find me saying things like that about Jesus.

[Y]

Originally posted by mstretton@Sep 9 2004, 03:25 AM
Good thing this is in insane because what you are saying about Jesus is insane, so are those pictures and the people who are posting them (ie: you)

You would NEVER find me saying things like that about Jesus.
Jesus isn't real.

Booyah.

[Venom[TSH]]

How do you know?
Booyah.

[SylentChaos]

There should been a superbig-duper grave from him.....

Thats the only evidence, since that doesnt exist, he's not real.....

[Infinito[TSH]]

Well Venom[TSH] how do you know he is real or how do you Y know he isn't real?
I don't belive it untill I see it.

[Seraph]

Jesus rocks my socks off. Seeing as I'm wearing no socks, I conclude he isn't here right now.

[Venom[TSH]]

It was two milleniums ago. Who knows what could happen to the grave in that much time.

[SylentChaos]

Could keep those super-religious people there and protecting it somewhat....?

[Ningen]

Originally posted by Venom[TSH]@Sep 9 2004, 10:43 AM
How do you know?
Booyah.
Because people don't rise from the grave, ascend into a utopia, get crowned ruler, and get all chummy with an imnipotent being.

[Y]

Originally posted by vegita[TSH]@Sep 9 2004, 09:52 AM
Well Venom[TSH] how do you know he is real or how do you Y know he isn't real?
I don't belive it untill I see it.
This is a stupid view. Have you ever, with your own eyes, seen $1 million dollars in gold bullion? Does that mean it isn't real?

Jesus Christ is a mythological character in a book of fables, much like the Hebrew Patriarchs and Adam/Eve. I pay him no more mind than I do Zeus.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Y+Sep 9 2004, 09:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y @ Sep 9 2004, 09:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mstretton@Sep 9 2004, 03:25 AM
Good thing this is in insane because what you are saying about Jesus is insane, so are those pictures and the people who are posting them (ie: you)

You would NEVER find me saying things like that about Jesus.
Jesus isn't real.

Booyah. [/b][/quote]

Historically, Jesus of Nazereth was as real as Augustus Ceasar, which is to say, ~2000 years ago there were people of those names. What you think about those people or how valid any of their claims were is up to you.

There are accounts of Jesus mentioned in other ancient sources than the Bible, and the Bible is mostly a historical text involving cities, wars and how the Jews responded to their holy figures (prophets, priests, etc) because religion was very important in ancient times (Egypt was the same way. So was China. So was Rome.)

From a purely historical outlook the Bible/Torah have been a valuable resource-- they get city names, geography, wars etc. right even if you historians don't agree with the Jewish or Christian religions.

Also, since Jesus wasn't Agustus Ceasar or a man of noble influence but was reported to be a carpenter turned wandering preacher-- there would be very little documentation on him. August Ceasar had hired historians to write his family history, he made proclamations and decrees, his face was on every coin stamped in Rome. A carpenter from a tiny town in Jerusalem just wouldn't get the same sort of attention.

Getting *documented* proof of ancient historical figures is rather difficult...even more contemporary figures such as Chaucer and Shakespeare are hard to find anything on...and we can only make an estimation of when they were born, what they *probably* did, etc.

History leaves out alot of people who existed...for instance it probably doesn't mention any of your ancestors that lived 2000-1000 years ago. But it does mention two of my relatives, Charlemagne and William the Conqueor. But who were they? Royalty, so they got the spotlight. All the poor slobs who died fighting their wars for them, who raised food for them, who made up society...the common soldiers, farmers, tailors, blacksmiths, etc. are conviently forgotten.

Try to recall how many carpenters you learned of from ancient history by name besides Jesus.

....

None?

But carpenters certainly existed, the frescoes we have from Rome, the sculptures from Greece and all historical accounts from the ancient world show furniture was present. That means someone was making it. That means there were carpenters.

But history is NOT:
1. Objective (it was written by humans)
2. Encompassing (they wrote about what interested them)
3. Complete (huge sections of history were lost, libraries destroyed, etc.)

Just like the Geologic record, there are bits missing. We don't have all the missing links for Evolution, we just have the scraps (fossils) that Mother Nature has left us through the ages. Once you acknowledge that, you begin to search for truth in the few scraps of history we do have-- realizing we will never know it completely just as we will never know the full story of Evolution (aka, what came first, all the extinct species, etc.).

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 9 2004, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 9 2004, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Y@Sep 9 2004, 09:38 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-mstretton@Sep 9 2004, 03:25 AM
Good thing this is in insane because what you are saying about Jesus is insane, so are those pictures and the people who are posting them (ie: you)

You would NEVER find me saying things like that about Jesus.
Jesus isn't real.

Booyah.
Historically, Jesus of Nazereth was as real as Augustus Ceasar, which is to say, ~2000 years ago there were people of those names. What you think about those people or how valid any of their claims were is up to you. [/b][/quote]
Historically, there is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. And you know damn well we're not talking about some random joker named Yeshua.

[Mondracon]

Cite your source Y.

Historically, historians have claimed alot of towns mentioned in histories (Roman, Jewish, Christian or otherwise) don't exist and then the historians find them later.


This is what I find on Nazareth.

"Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Joseph and its name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud."

In other words, its sort of like my hometown, which most people within 40 miles haven't even heard of and won't go down in the history books unless someone here does something of interest like die a martyr.

[Y]

This is Insane. I'm not getting into a theological debate. Check your source - it was settled for a period of 300 years, but half a millennium before Christ is supposed to have lived there.

The entire reason for the fake town name, by the way, was Matthew's shoddy Hebrew. The OT never prophesied that the Jewish Messiah would come from Nazareth, but that he would be an offshoot of David's house (the words are similar). Of course, Jesus being conceived immaculately means he wasn't descended from anyone, but whatever.

[Daniel]

I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s). Further, devils, demons, angels and saints are myths; there is no life after death, no heaven or hell; the Pope is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and the Holy Ghost is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse the Christian god of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place--not to mention the 'ethnic cleansing' presently being performed by Christians in our world -- and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women.

[Haroken]

O.o


This is creepy. I had a pastor shultz or whateve rat my chruch in ohio... weird.

[Seraph]

The funny thing is, the people who are taking this seriously are stupid retards because Silver started it. Plus stop making so many Augustus references, "Jesus" was executed under the reign of Tiberius.

[SuperFusion]

I heard Mary had a baby without having sex! O_O

[Haroken]

That is how the story goes.

[Seraph]

They say if you put a penny on Jesus' grave, he comes out and eats some nachos, and then he goes back in before pulling your fly down.

[Y]

I didn't notice all the shit Mondracon added to her post. Most of it is laughable, but I like the glaring fallacy of "missing links" in evolution the best.

[SuperFusion]

I believe we all know you can't have a baby without sex.

Well, unless your gonna get sperm from another male. From a tube or w/e

[Haroken]

I'd liek to think we all know that too.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Y@Sep 9 2004, 02:14 PM
I didn't notice all the shit Mondracon added to her post. Most of it is laughable, but I like the glaring fallacy of "missing links" in evolution the best.
Y--
Calling something a "glaring fallacy" without explaining why is just unsupported criticism. Its reminds me of proclaiming that Nazereth didn't exist without citing a source.

As for my usage of Evolution and the Geologic record, I was referring to the fact that there must have been countless organisms and several species that lived that we simply have no record of. Biologists and Paleontologists agree on this-- there were many more links in the chain of Evolution than will ever be found because not everything gets fossilized (though whenever a Missing Link is discovered aka. FOUND {and several have been} we know a bit more about the past.) The fossil record isn't perfect and I was using this as a comparison to the record of human history because humans don't document things perfectly and lose much of what they do (in wars, in fires, in ignorance etc.)

It was a metaphor. A comparison. Do I have to draw a picture here?

You still haven't given me your source. I've heard alot of "Was that Jesus guy REAL?" commentary and not one person mentioned "Oh hey, Nazereth didn't exist!" which would have lent a great deal of support to their arguments. In fact you are the ONLY person I know who has ever said this. Cite your source please.


Everyone Else--

In order to clarify a few things...

I am NOT arguing about Augustus. I used him as an example, if you can't understand the idea of an EXAMPLE go back to school, I could have just as easily used Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great or Cleopatra. Stop talking if you can't do a little comprehensive reading.

I am NOT arguing about biological reproduction. I said the MAN existed, whether or not he was more than that or how he got here is open to discussion in theological debates. But in this conversation I am ONLY examining the HISTORICAL aspects and that like "Buddha" (OH TEH NOES! ANOTHER EXAMPLE) the man existed. Beyond that, its a matter of how credible you think the religious sources are if you are into mysticism or if you think those guys were full of it but got a cult following anyway, or if Jesus/Buddha were even their real names.

For instance if Ghandi had lived 1000 years ago we wouldn't know much about him either except maybe he spun his own clothes, advocated peaceful protest, and shot fire ball's out of his ass --humans embellish things-- and his name was Gumbi.



My point was, did a man of that name (or nickname) that was referred to as Christ exist at some point? The answer is yes-- Christ the man is mentioned by several Roman historians including Suetonius and Tacitus and also by the Jewish historian Josephus. Whatever else you chose to believe is your own matter.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 10 2004, 12:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 10 2004, 12:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Y@Sep 9 2004, 02:14 PM
I didn't notice all the shit Mondracon added to her post. Most of it is laughable, but I like the glaring fallacy of "missing links" in evolution the best.
Y--
Calling something a "glaring fallacy" without explaining why is just unsupported criticism. Its reminds me of proclaiming that Nazereth didn't exist without citing a source.

As for my usage of Evolution and the Geologic record, I was referring to the fact that there must have been countless organisms and several species that lived that we simply have no record of. Biologists and Paleontologists agree on this-- there were many more links in the chain of Evolution than will ever be found because not everything gets fossilized (though whenever a Missing Link is discovered aka. FOUND {and several have been} we know a bit more about the past.) The fossil record isn't perfect and I was using this as a comparison to the record of human history because humans don't document things perfectly and lose much of what they do (in wars, in fires, in ignorance etc.)

It was a metaphor. A comparison. Do I have to draw a picture here?

You still haven't given me your source. I've heard alot of "Was that Jesus guy REAL?" commentary and not one person mentioned "Oh hey, Nazereth didn't exist!" which would have lent a great deal of support to their arguments. In fact you are the ONLY person I know who has ever said this. Cite your source please.


Everyone Else--

In order to clarify a few things...

I am NOT arguing about Augustus. I used him as an example, if you can't understand the idea of an EXAMPLE go back to school, I could have just as easily used Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great or Cleopatra. Stop talking if you can't do a little comprehensive reading.

I am NOT arguing about biological reproduction. I said the MAN existed, whether or not he was more than that or how he got here is open to discussion in theological debates. But in this conversation I am ONLY examining the HISTORICAL aspects and that like "Buddha" (OH TEH NOES! ANOTHER EXAMPLE) the man existed. Beyond that, its a matter of how credible you think the religious sources are if you are into mysticism or if you think those guys were full of it but got a cult following anyway, or if Jesus/Buddha were even their real names.

For instance if Ghandi had lived 1000 years ago we wouldn't know much about him either except maybe he spun his own clothes, advocated peaceful protest, and shot fire ball's out of his ass --humans embellish things-- and his name was Gumbi.



My point was, did a man of that name (or nickname) that was referred to as Christ exist at some point? The answer is yes-- Christ the man is mentioned by several Roman historians including Suetonius and Tacitus and also by the Jewish historian Josephus. Whatever else you chose to believe is your own matter. [/b][/quote]
It's insane, you nutty bitch. I can say whatever I want.

Your references are laughable. Bring it, and I will shit on them. Easily.

EDIT:

I'm being flippant because I am *not* debating you in Insane. Post exactly what you've said here in Intellectual.

[Y]

You might want to make a separate topic for evolution though. The issues are rather unrelated.

[Mondracon]

More unfounded statements. Big talk, all talk, but nothing to back it up.

It IS Insane Discussion and it gives everyone the right to be idiots-- but that does not mean they have be....well, does it? (That was a rhetorical statement, the answer is "NO!")


"Human History is incomplete like the Geologic record is incomplete" is a Metaphor, in that both have large sections of data "missing". Unless you explain why, I cannot see how a comparison is a logical fallacy. Explain why you think its a logical fallacy or I will assume your criticism was an unjustifiable emotional expression.

You have yet to provided a source. Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus are my current refernces.

(Just in case I missed a new rule that people do indeed have to be idiots in Insane or be banned, I will now spout random drivel)
Squirrels. Are. Like bullets. Bullets of fur and...irony...!!!


((Bugger, you EDITED yours...now half of this doesn't make sense if any of it did to begin with.))

[Y]

You wanna do it here?

[Y]

Ok. Hoo boy.

Suetonius.

I'll start with this “reference”, which is easily the most spurious of the three because it requires nothing but textual analyzation to refute. Suetonius' exact quote follows: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome.” This is from Suetonius' biography of Claudius in The Lives Of The Caesars. Why is this a spurious reference?

1)Suetonius is writing in or around 120AD. This hardly makes him a contemporary of the supposed Christ.
2)“Chrestus” does not mean “Christ” in Latin. Every single Christian citation will attempt to merge “Christus” into “Chrestus”. Sorry, they're different names. Suetonius does in fact know how to spell “Christian”, as he does so later in the volume.
3)This passage states that there was a man, named Chrestus, IN Rome at the time instigating the Jews. This puts Christ 20 years out of place and in a region of the world he supposedly never went to biblically, and is no more in harmony with the religious texts than the non-canonical Gospels.
4)This passage, at best, confirms the existence of Christians in early Rome before the fall of the Temple. Not exactly impressive stuff.

Josephus Flavius

Josephus is history's best Christian source – good pick.
Originally posted by Book 18 of the Antiquities
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Again, Josephus is writing in the latter half of the first century AD, and is not a contemporary of Christ. More importantly, however, is the fact that it is extremely likely that the above passage is a forgery. Why, you ask? Origen, and other Christian writers writing from the 1st to the 3rd century AD, all reference Josephus as being an unbeliever and denying that their King was the Messiah. Furthermore, in his own writings both before and after this portion (which is referred to as the Testimonium Flavanium), Josephus makes it clear that he is a Pharisaic Jew, while this passage makes him into a Christian. Furthermore, this passage begins to appear both in copies of the Antiquities and in contemporary Christian literature references in the 4th century AD – after it had been translated by the church father Eusebius, the man who famously said “{I}tit is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach.” Pardon me if I find a passage that appears only after he has handled a work to be a bit lacking.

Tacitus

“[The Christians] derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Good stuff, right? Here's the underlying layer. Again, Tacitus is *not* a contemporary of Christ and is repeating this information from, at BEST, a second-hand source. So what we need is to ascertain WHAT source Tacitus was drawing from. Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. Right? Tacitus (writing in 100AD) would need to be citing Roman records for this to be authentic. Unfortunately, he has two details in here that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of this passage. One, Pontius Pilate was not a procurator – he was a prefect. Two, Tacitus here uses the Greek “Christos”, a religious title, which Roman records would certainly not do (he would be called Yeshua ben Josef). Tacitus elsewhere in the Annals refers to Christianity as a “supersition” - he would obviously not be calling Jesus the Messiah. This means that either this text is also an interpolation, which is unlikely, or that he was simply repeating the story told to him by the Christians of the day, who would of course refer to Christ by his religious title and not just a name. The second is more likely.

[Y]

And I was citing the Encyclopaedia Biblica (http://www.bible-researcher.com/encyclopaedia-biblica.html) from memory, which does a number on the historicity of Nazareth.

[Mondracon]

Impatient? I was in Intellectual as you suggested.

PS-- A direct quote would be splendid. I would like to see what methods they used to determine that it was unoccupied during that period, especially if it was a minor village. I would also like to know why this claim is not more widely published-- say...in every history book, atheist writing, and documentary on the time period-- the text is a 1970 publication so it should be well known if historians accepted it as a fact.

As for the rest of it...Intellectual?

[Y]

Making a topic that has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.

Go for it.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 10 2004, 02:00 AM
PS-- A direct quote would be splendid. I would like to see what methods they used to determine that it was unoccupied during that period, especially if it was a minor village. I would also like to know why this claim is not more widely published-- say...in every history book, atheist writing, and documentary on the time period-- the text is a 1970 publication so it should be well known if historians accepted it as a fact.
People are dumbasses. What can I say? Not everyone can be as thorough as me.

No, I will not copy down the information from the .pdf. It's an encyclopedia, arranged alphabetically; you can get to N pretty easily.

Also, let's keep Jesus in here.

[Mondracon]

EDIT-- I hate it so much I'm whiteing most of it out, read it at your own risj, I'm too tired to think straihgt now. Just...whatever. SLEEP SLEEP! MY KINGDOM FOR SOME SLEEP.

EDIT2-- So I'm awake now and I still hate it. DELETED.

You’ve decided and then? We stay here?

I did attempt to look up Nazareth in link provided...if I remember the alphabet correctly N (as in Nazareth) falls betwen L and P, but when I check this section there is no Nazareth listed. Is it listed under something else?

You dismiss secondary sources on the grounds that they are not contemporary and you dismiss the primary sources (the various letters and books written by various authors and collected in the Bible) as pure myth...but you chose to accept the secondary writings as correct when they seem to disprove the existence of the man and ignore those that support his existence. Which is it? Shall we toss out ALL secondary sources (after all, they are all secondary and thus given to error) or shall we accept them all? Picking and choosing, ignorning one for being secondary while accepting another isn't very constant.

Do not forget there were other historians who wrote dring this period. However, their writings were either lost (the vast majority of historians' works were lost, the vast majority of historians are nameles and forgotten, their histories lost or destroyed) or maybe they simply didn't see it as important enough to mention. We know many texts of the ancient world were lost as there may be surviving fragments or they were quoted or mentioned by an author whose works did survive. See link.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/La...Historians.html (http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinAuthors/Historians.html)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now its 2:53 a.m., do you know where your sleep is? I sure don't.

I don't know where my point went either but I'm too knackered to give a damn but I'm not deleting it because I took the time to write it. I'll figure it out in the morning or wondr why I bother writing when I have to get up early. BAH!!!!

Goodnight.

[Mondracon]

This goes with the link in previous post.

Herodotus (480-425 B.C.)
Greek historian

Thucydides (460- ? B.C.)
Greek historian

Xenophon (?-c. 355 B.C.)
Greek general and historian

Strabo (63 B.C. - ?)
Greco-roman geographer and historian

Titus Livius (59 B.C. - A.D. 17)
Roman historian

{A.D. 33, Jesus dies}

Tacitus (A.D. 54 - 119)
Roman historian

Plutarch (c. A.D. 45 - c. 125)
Greco-roman moralist and historian

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69-after 122 CE)
Roman historian


Finding "contemporary" historical accounts from sources other than followers of Jesus may be impossible...as you see from those listed, historians often lived years apart from each other leaving large gaps in the timeline. In the years between one historian's death and another's birth other historians almost certainly existed, but because so many works or antiquity were lost there is simply no way of knowing what historians there were or what their histories included (with the exceptions noted in the link from the above post-- we know some information about those historians but have very little or none of their prodigious writings.)

If we ignore everything BUT contemporary accounts then Jesus existed according to his followers (authors of the New Testament) and thats it. Of course if we ignore everything except contemporary accounts for ALL of history we are left with VERY LITTLE history because historians often covered events that occured before their own lifetime. If modern historians only accepted the events that were written during each historian's own lifetime, history would be much sparser-- reduced to the few events that the few historians we have documented mentioned as occuring during their own life.

Aka. we would only accept history if it was the present history of the few historians-- meaning you can forget everything you learned in school and start searching the writings of those historians for events that actually occured in their lifetime and the picture you would have of the past would be very narrow and incomplete. Our knowledge of that ancient world is already very limited-- throwing out the writings of historians just because all the events they mention aren't didn't occur in their lifetime would cripple ALL of ancient history. If we did that, more than half the events we "know of" from Rome and Ancient Greece would be invalidated and we'd have to start over at square one--forget everything we think we know and just collect the few events that were contemporary to the few historians' writings we have.

Instead, modern historians accept these historians written events in politics, war, etc. (though they realize the accounts may not be objective or entirely accurate) as fact though recorded at a later date.

But if you want to ignore historians...lets just start knocking big chunks out of history across the board-- Roman, Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, etc.-- any event that isn't documented by a source contempory to its occurence ignored. And if we do that, we can re-write the history of the world into one single volume, I garauntee it.

[Seraph]

It's all very nice, but I still don't believe in Jesus Christ, son of God which was the comment that started all of this.

[Mondracon]

Which wasn't what I was dealing with...much apologies to those who were. I'm merely advocating that there was a living individual which inspired those beliefs, a man to who those qualities were ascribed.

I don't know if my point is getting across...

History (especially ancient history) isn't reliable, if several different historians mention an event or person, even in passing and however garbled, there was proabably some truth there. Other than that, we can't be certain of anything, not even contemporary accounts because historians are humans and humans are subjective, write in their self-interests and can be intentionally dishonest.

The fact that Christ is mentioned in surviving histories (we can only wonder what the missing histories would provide) suggests there was some actual fact, some actual person that produced the comments. The unfortunate fact that we have no objective first hand commentary is, as with most of history, due less to them never having been present but more likely lost and destroyed like most of the ancient records.

I believe in the historical Jesus the same way I trust the history of any other historical event or figure. Some are obviously more documented...such as kings and wars, and others would be less documented...such as carpenters and rabbi. But I would trust the word of 1 ancient historian and several eye-witness accounts over nothing. That is, such a figure is mentioned and likely given other such religious icons are presemt in history (Buddha, Confucius {more of a philosopher really}).

Question: How many ancient historians contemporary to Jesus denied there ever was such a person? Tacitus was a respected historian, he could have easily tacked in a sentence or to say that it was suspected or known that Jesus the man never even existed if he hadn't...

[eclipse]

Originally posted by Conexion+Sep 9 2004, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Conexion @ Sep 9 2004, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Y@Sep 8 2004, 09:51 PM
http://jesuswasaterrorist.com/images/Procreat.jpg
Man, I'm a christian and that still made me laugh :lol: [/b][/quote]
Same here =P That is kinda funny. Oh yeah, if your not a christian why post in here?

[Ningen]

Originally posted by eclipse@Sep 10 2004, 02:55 PM
Same here =P That is kinda funny. Oh yeah, if your not a christian why post in here?
because if only Christians posted here, then it'd be a one-sided argument. In fact, there wouldn't be an argument, and that's just fucking retarded.

[Mondracon]

Yes indeed, its called freedom of speech and be heartily glad of it no matter what is said for at least something can be said. In the words of our founding fathers, God Bless America!

Difference leads to broader discussions and broad discussions widen narrow minds. Appreciate it, for without variety humans would grow stagnant and dull in their own mental feedback and never a new thought would be created.

'Pon my troth! Damn Billy Shakespeare, I read his ancient drivel and I can't help speaking the like!

[Isaac]

I like jesus on toast.

[JonnyCake]

Kyle I am christian and you make us look like idiots. Come on trying to convert people on forums is totally stupid. One you know they dont care what you say, two even if they do convert what about discipleship mister big shot, and how do you know they are saved. Please go preach to real people man not forums. <_<

[Ningen]

Originally posted by JonnyCake@Sep 10 2004, 09:30 PM
Please go preach to real people man not forums. <_<
Uh, I post here, but I'm still a real person. Honest. I have a card to prove it.

[JonnyCake]

Originally posted by Ningen+Sep 10 2004, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ningen @ Sep 10 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JonnyCake@Sep 10 2004, 09:30 PM
Please go preach to real people man not forums. <_<
Uh, I post here, but I'm still a real person. Honest. I have a card to prove it. [/b][/quote]
You know what I mean your just being a meanie!

Rawr!

[Y]

Originally posted by JonnyCake@Sep 10 2004, 08:30 PM
Kyle I am christian and you make us look like idiots. Come on trying to convert people on forums is totally stupid. One you know they dont care what you say, two even if they do convert what about discipleship mister big shot, and how do you know they are saved. Please go preach to real people man not forums. <_<
Sarcasm went *right* over your head, huh?

[Flugigo]

Zing.



2nd time recently. Boo jya.

[Y]

I'm wondering how best to respond to Mondracon. A piece by piece dissection? Almost impossible. For one, she writes a huge amount to disguise the lack of substance - for two, almost ALL of it is irrelevant. No dice on refuting it as it relates to the historicity of Christ.

[Y]

Originally posted by misst@Sep 10 2004, 08:52 PM
you both like getting your money's worth of pages upon pages of Jesus rambling that's for fucking sure
Damn right. I've done this for years.

[SuperFusion]

Who cares about Jesus anyway.. Men die all day and all of a sudden when one "claims" he is the messiah, people think his is more important then another perosns death.. Get over it.. O_o

[SuperFusion]

Whoah, quite a few errors in my post..

[Magetto]

Originally posted by superfusion@Sep 10 2004, 09:18 PM
Whoah, quite a few errors in my post..
thats why theres a fucking edit button.

[SuperFusion]

Why aren't you observant.. :rollseyes:

I didn't double post by mistake, ass.

[Rykon]

...

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Y@Sep 10 2004, 08:49 PM
I'm wondering how best to respond to Mondracon. A piece by piece dissection? Almost impossible. For one, she writes a huge amount to disguise the lack of substance - for two, almost ALL of it is irrelevant. No dice on refuting it as it relates to the historicity of Christ.
You could at least show me where your mysterious entry for Nazareth is since it isn't under "N."

Or show me...I dunno...a historian contemporary to Jesus' life time that claims he didn't exist....

The essential basics.

And I type alot....because I like to. ^.^ *wags tail*

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 11 2004, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 11 2004, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Y@Sep 10 2004, 08:49 PM
I'm wondering how best to respond to Mondracon. A piece by piece dissection? Almost impossible. For one, she writes a huge amount to disguise the lack of substance - for two, almost ALL of it is irrelevant. No dice on refuting it as it relates to the historicity of Christ.
You could at least show me where your mysterious entry for Nazareth is since it isn't under "N."
[/b][/quote]
Yes it is, you stupid bitch.

[Mondracon]

Not on the link you gave me.

From the link you gave me... L-P:

http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana...iblica_l-p.html (http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/encyl_biblica_l-p/encyl_biblica_l-p.html)

Notice if you will....

Nazareth should fall between Nanea and Nekeb...

Its not there.

EDIT-- BAH nevermind, I see now. It doesn't list all the entries but sections.

[gaybison]

If Jesus loves me, why do I have this awful tumor sticking out of my side?

You guys are fucking bunk, and deserve the politics you derive pleasure from.

Hunter S. Thompson was right when he said, "Death to the Weird."


Res ipsa loquitor.
Amen.

[Muppets]

Ew dude. Shut the fuck up. Jesus is gay.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 07:48 PM
Not on the link you gave me.

From the link you gave me... L-P:

http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana...iblica_l-p.html (http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/encyl_biblica_l-p/encyl_biblica_l-p.html)

Notice if you will....

Nazareth should fall between Nanea and Nekeb...

Its not there.

EDIT-- BAH nevermind, I see now. It doesn't list all the entries but sections.
It is! Shit, you're such a fucking liar! Do you want a screencap?

EDIT:

Ok, good, you can read now.

[SuperFusion]

haha... that was a funny post I read.. Not yourz Andrew

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 07:42 PM
Or show me...I dunno...a historian contemporary to Jesus' life time that claims he didn't exist....
This is just laugh-out-loud funny. Show you a historian who claimed the falsity of a story that hadn't yet been invented?

[Seraph]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/Clappers/MondyOWNED.jpg

[gaybison]

=/
I never claimed to be funny.
That makes me sad that you guys are arguing over the entries in a Biblical Encyclopedia... but, as usual, Y wins.

Y is my hero.

[Mondracon]

Show me one contemporary with Tacitus then.

Seraph-- We've already established its there, but I am impressed you found the printscreen key all by yourself and only 5 minutes late.

[SuperFusion]

lol

[Seraph]

Yeah, while as it took you several days.

[SuperFusion]

No, not at your joke Mondracon

[MMX17]

wow this shit is soo f uped you guys have no respect :huh:

[Seraph]

It's only a fictional character, calm down.

[Y]

A contemporary with Tacitus? Ok, Suetonius, who called Christianity a "pernicious superstition".

[MMX17]

wow someone is full of it <_<

[Seraph]

Yeah, you and your holier-than-thou-because-I-believe in Jesus attitude is really full of it.

Y: of course let's not forget Suetonius was prone to exaggerating any rumours and hearsay, so even he's unreliable.

[MMX17]

Wow such ignorance :lol:

[Seraph]

Yes, because not believing in a religion is called ignorance. Nice one there, I am so totally owned.

[MMX17]

Ignorance you sooo totally miss da point :lol:

[Seraph]

Must be a "End every post with an emoticon" thing.

[MMX17]

guess sooo :blink: lol

[Y]

Originally posted by MMX16@Sep 11 2004, 08:17 PM
Ignorance you sooo totally miss da point :lol:
Why don't you contribute something worth a shit to the discussion?

[MMX17]

Here we go again end of discussion I don't have time for dis.

[Y]

Originally posted by MMX16@Sep 11 2004, 08:44 PM
Here we go again end of discussion I don't have time to get owned.
It's ok.

[Spyda]

Originally posted by MMX16@Sep 11 2004, 09:44 PM
Here we go again end of discussion I don't have time for dis.
Start devoting more time to the t and h keys.

[MMX17]

wow you really want to argue IMMATURE

[Spyda]

Originally posted by MMX16@Sep 11 2004, 09:48 PM
wow you really want to argue IMMATURE
Im sorry. I dont know what I was dinkin

[Mondracon]

Seraph--
I believe in the Holocaust too. And I believe in Scythians, Persians, Babylon and Jericho. I believe in Julius cesar, Boudicca, Queen Hetshepsut, Galileo, Newton, etc. even though I've never met them or seen them. I believe there was probably a town that spawned the tale of Atlantis too-- but the actual fact probably wasn't so dramatic.

There is usually (not always) some truth in history, no matter how garbled and distorted-- and until absolute proof to the contrary or conflicting accounts from well-respected ancient authors (such as Tacitus) arise then I presume that there was something, a living person or an event that INSPIRED the accounts.

But human history isn't perfect, nor complete, nor subjective. And you have to take it with a critical eye. Meaning, there probably was a literal person, 2000 years ago named Jesus or some variant thereof, who was born in Nazareth or some variant thereof or was a Nazarene or Nazarite, who inspired his followers and was known as the Christ and preached and died. Thats the history of it. If you want to argue religion find another person.

Now Y and I were having an interesting discussion before your outburst, and I'll continue it.



Y--
From the Encyclopedia....

"In spite of the existence of rock-cut tombs up the hill towards the W. (west), we cannot perhaps venture to assert possitively that there was a city called Nazareth in Jesus' time."

They are being laudibly scientific about it and not sticking their necks out. Essentially there is an appropiate graveyard present but they haven't found enough to absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, say that the town was located there at that time. Which means either they haven't found it yet or it never was.

If they do find it or more evidence of it later, it wouldn't be the first time historians called a city "myth" and it turned out to be real.

There was a time when the scientific community didn't believe Jericho existed becuase it was in one of those stories from the Bible/Talmud. Well its real and you can go see it today because they finally discovered it. It was a real city, whatever you believe about it the Bible/Talmud, so the Jews could have been fighting their wars there.

"Until the reign of Constantine it had none but Jewish inhabitants."
So then they apparently know for certain that someone was dwelling there later period and before the reign of Constantine (around 306 AD) and they were all Jews.

However, the authors of this Encyclopedia affirm that they can't assert Nazareth does exist until they find more evidence...nor are they absolutely denying it. Its the wisest choice, as a historian.

And perhaps in this topic as well (its beginning to remind me of the Warm Vs. Cold blooded theory of Dinosaurs, which continues to this day.)

But, I would truly like to know if there is an ancient source, as reputable as Tacitus that flat out states such a man never existed. I trust Tacitus on alot of things, partly because he was such a cynical man. It would be nice to know if there is a equally reliable source from that general time period discounting Jesus/Christ as a person entirely.

[Y]

Historically, there is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Do you disagree with this statement, Mondracon?

EDIT:

If possible, please trim the amount of irrelevance in your response to the minimum.

[Seraph]

I knew you were typing too much for your own good again.

I'll bring the concept of the message board to you; it's basically if you don't want people commenting, don't fucking cry when they do on a public board. Oh, and look at the title; I don't know about you but religion's going to crop up somewhere, especially when the debate is on the existance of Christianity's holiest town and person.

Plus trusting someone like Tacitus "because they were cynical" Well fucking done, that's only the worst way you can analyse something. Go with his bias. That sort of cynicism exaggerated Tiberius and called the treason trial period as a "reign of terror" even though it was hardly the case.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 08:02 PM
Yeah, while as it took you several days.
I never used the print-screen key... :huh:

I didn't find it...mainly because I was reading late at night and my vision tends to get blurry when I get tired. So I failed to notice that it was divied up into sections, not individual entries. But looking at it today, with a full 8 hours of rest, it became obvious immediately.

To err is human. Pardon me for being human.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Y@Sep 11 2004, 08:53 PM
Historically, there is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Do you disagree with this statement, Mondracon?

EDIT:

If possible, please trim the amount of irrelevance in your response to the minimum.
I'll read the article again, but I didn't see that quote in there and I was looking for it.

*re-reads*

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 11 2004, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 11 2004, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Y@Sep 11 2004, 08:53 PM
Historically, there is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Do you disagree with this statement, Mondracon?

EDIT:

If possible, please trim the amount of irrelevance in your response to the minimum.
I'll read the article again, but I didn't see that quote in there and I was looking for it.

*re-reads* [/b][/quote]
Not in the fucking article, dammit. I said that as my response to your first post. Do you believe this is a valid statement? That we currently have no evidence to suggest that Nazareth existed at the "time of Christ"?

[Heavy_P]

Until you have ACTUAL LIVING PROOF of Jesus that we can say is definite, Y wins this little arguement. thx

[Seraph]

Do I count?

[Heavy_P]

Sure. I also win, for closing out the entire thing. In fact I beat both of you.

[Y]

And before you go Nazi on me, "We do not have evidence that suggests Nazareth existed at the time of Christ" is a subset in the statement "We do not have evidence to suggest that Nazareth either did or did not exist at the time of Christ". While not all-inclusive, it is still true if the broader statement is true. So, yea, or nay?

[Heavy_P]

I still win, either way.

[Y]

Shut up.

[Seraph]

So, anyone wanna play Go Fish while we're waiting?

[Y]

Got any threes?

[Heavy_P]

Yessir. Y = winner. <3. After all, I'm just doing what insane is known for. A big stupid spam fest.

[Seraph]

I dunno, I forgot the rules. All I know is Pontoon and Blackjack. ;_;

[Mondracon]

I'll say: not enough evidence to establish it scientifically at this current time.

We have:
The word of several highly-subjective sources (his Jewish/Christian followers)
Appropiate tombs located on the hill above the current Nazareth.
The fact that there were Jews living there earlier than 300 years following...but how MUCH earlier is still questionable.

Thats not enough for a conclusive "yes" or a conclusive "no." That makes it a theory still in testing, or a trial with out enough evidence to take to court. In other words, it shouldn't be debated since there isn't enough evidence for or against. It should be researched further to find more convincing signs (other than a graveyard) that there was someone there during that period or that there couldn't possibly have been anyone there at that time period.

But this has inspired another topic for intellectual discussion...my personal favorite...Warm or Cold Bloodedness in Dinosaurs and at what point? XD

[Heavy_P]

All those things have a 90% percent chance of being made up, fake, or wrong.

[Seraph]

GO FISH!

[Mondracon]

I type alot and since you don't read it anyway so it doesn't hurt anyone does it?

Except you are impatient.

[Gohi]

Got any 6's?

[Spyda]

666
omgz!

[Seraph]

Quantity, not quality.

[Y]

A verv exquisite nonanswer.

Do we, currently, have historical evidence supporting the existence of a town called Nazareth at the time of Christ?

[Heavy_P]

We have no accurate, historic, and definite proof of Jesus's existence

vs.

I'm composing my beliefs on something which isn't liable and has a 90% percent of being fake, made up, or altered like crazy.

[Mondracon]

I answered that already. There isn't enough either way.

I'm being just like the Encyclopedia here...refusing to suppose either way. Non-answers are the right answer when you don't have enough evidence to deffintely prove or disprove a theory.

[Heavy_P]

It's easy to disprove a theory which has no valid evidence to support it.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:14 PM
I answered that already. There isn't enough either way.

I'm being just like the Encyclopedia here...refusing to suppose either way. Non-answers are the right answer when you don't have enough evidence to deffintely prove or disprove a theory.
I already covered this a page back. I said that we don't have any evidence to prove it existed.

Even if we have no evidence either way, the above statement is true.

Do you agree with that or not?

[Mondracon]

Like Jericho?

People didn't believe in that city either. Just like you don't believe in Nazaerth. But then they FOUND the damn thing. That must have been embarassing for them.

But since there were appropiate tombs loacted just west of the current Nazareth and people living there before 300 AD-- I'm not going to say no. Neither will I say yes. Its simply inconclusicve.

And thats my final answer.

"INCONCLUSIVE"

[Gohi]

Alright, let's all stfu and play cards.

[Spyda]

9 psges of mindless argument. What fun

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:18 PM
Like Jericho?
Kathleen Kenyon returned yet again to the site in 1955 to apply a more exacting type of systematic archaeology (called the "Wheeler-Kenyon method") that is now used regularly throughout the field. Kenyon argued that Garstung had excavated the wrong wall and mistakenly thought that the Early Bronze Age foundations were instead the Late Bronze Age walls of the time of Joshua's Conquest. Jericho was destroyed, not in the Late Bronze Age, but rather nine hundred years earlier in the Early Bronze Age sometime around 2400 BCE. The site was a small village during the Late Bronze Age when Joshua was said to have crossed the Jordan River, making Tell es-Sultan's conquest unnecessary.30 French archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause excavated at nearby et-Tell (the biblical Ai in Joshua 7-8) and found, similarly, that it too was destroyed around 2400 BCE. By the time of Joshua's conquest, the city had been completely abandoned.

Actually, not like Jericho, because in this case events most definitely did *not* play out as the Bible says.

My statement *is* true. There is *not* historical evidence supporting the idea that Nazareth existed at the time of Christ.

[Mondracon]

Thats very assertive for an inconclusive case (which your source has shown it to be) in which there is some evidence to support that it was possible but not enough to support it beyond doubt.

Research is the correct answer.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:26 PM
Thats very assertive for an inconclusive case
It's also fucking true. It may become untrue later, but it isn't at the present time. Can you fucking deal with that and stop posting huge reams of irrelevant trash that doesn't even begin to invalidate what I said?

[Gohi]

Can't we all agree to disagree?

[Mondracon]

Hey Misst, I already have. Talk to this Y-is-for-Yahoo for me. I've said there isn't enough support either way to make a final decision, he wants to push a final decision.

[Seraph]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

ZING.

[Seraph]

You seem to be missing the point of the entire argument somewhat.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:30 PM
Hey Misst, I already have. Talk to this Y-is-for-Yahoo for me. I've said there isn't enough support either way to make a final decision, he wants to push a final decision.
You posted, oh, I dunno, maybe six MS Word pages worth of discussion on this subject.

Not a single goddamn bit of it is relevant to the truth or falsity of what I said. All of it is irrelevant posturing to attempt to cover the fact that:

1) You had not read any of the sources you cited. You would have to be on drugs to cite Suetonius, and you would have at least quoted the relevant passages you were supposedly "citing".
2) You have done very little actual research on the issue at hand if you have never even heard the contention I was making.
3) You cannot use a God-damn encyclopedia correctly.
3) You initially thought I was stating, for a fact, that Nazareth did not exist ever, because, again, you're a shitty reader. You have to keep this facade up, else your argument falls apart because you would have been attacking exactly the "conclusion" you reached later - that there is no supporting evidence either way (which there is, in my favor).

Please, bring me no more irrelevant garbage, and I'll give you no insults.

[Mondracon]

*sigh*

That wasn't what I was arguing Misst. I was arguing there was a man alive at some point who inspired the accounts, whether he was the Son of God or not has nothing to do it. Thats theological, not historical, and I absolutely refuse to argue theology on forums. Its like arguing favorite colors or which flavor of icecream is better, its very subjective.

[Y]

Here, I'll put it simply: Beyond a more exacting level of specificity, there is no difference between your conclusion and my first contention, and you are a retard for wasting all your time arguing "against" what you are supposedly for because you misread my initial contention.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Y+Sep 11 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y @ Sep 11 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:30 PM
Hey Misst, I already have. Talk to this Y-is-for-Yahoo for me. I've said there isn't enough support either way to make a final decision, he wants to push a final decision.
You posted, oh, I dunno, maybe six MS Word pages worth of discussion on this subject.

Not a single goddamn bit of it is relevant to the truth or falsity of what I said. All of it is irrelevant posturing to attempt to cover the fact that:

1) You had not read any of the sources you cited. You would have to be on drugs to cite Suetonius, and you would have at least quoted the relevant passages you were supposedly "citing".
2) You have done very little actual research on the issue at hand if you have never even heard the contention I was making.
3) You cannot use a God-damn encyclopedia correctly.
3) You initially thought I was stating, for a fact, that Nazareth did not exist ever, because, again, you're a shitty reader. You have to keep this facade up, else your argument falls apart because you would have been attacking exactly the "conclusion" you reached later - that there is no supporting evidence either way (which there is, in my favor).

Please, bring me no more irrelevant garbage, and I'll give you no insults. [/b][/quote]
I read Tacitus, I had seen other sources secondarily but couldn't remember them word for word.

That Nazareth didn't exist? I don't know, I've watched and read alot of anti-Jesus materials and never heard anyone claim flat out "there was no Nazareth!" That would stick with me if I'd heard it before.

I can't read anything correctly late at night, I get punch-drunk and dizzy. Is that a crime?

You said Jesus didn't exist and then said there was no proof Nazareth existed, so I believed you were saying Nazareth didn't exist either.

You've been insulting enough already.

I've already made my answer.

Thats all.

[Y]

I hope the taste of your foot in your mouth is pleasent.

[Mondracon]

More insults. It doesn't change my answer. That is all.

[Heavy_P]

Thats theological, not historical, and I absolutely refuse to argue theology on forums. Its like arguing favorite colors or which flavor of icecream is better, its very subjective.


So along time ago there was this guy named Josh12 on a forum. People were arguing what Josh's favourite colour was. One said "Well, someone way back said that it was green I think. He used the colour alot in his signature too". Another guy on the forum said, "There is still no way to tell if that was really his favourite colour".

The first person babbled nonsense which didn't have any valid statements that actually said that Josh's favourite colour was green. The second said "There is so still no evidence that it was green". Then the first person babbled herself out saying that her decision stood inconclusive and talked some more. The second guy then got tired of it, laid down the hammer, won the arguement. Seraph wins the superbowl.

Final decision. We still don't know what Josh12's favourite fucking color is. So shut the fuck up.

[Seraph]

misst: and that means...

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:50 PM
More insults. It doesn't change my answer. That is all.
How'd you like it when I dumped on your sources for Christ's historicity? I notice you won't touch them again.

You can bring in Justin Martyr, or Julius Africanus. Maybe try for Pliny the Younger?

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Heavy_P@Sep 11 2004, 09:51 PM
Thats theological, not historical, and I absolutely refuse to argue theology on forums. Its like arguing favorite colors or which flavor of icecream is better, its very subjective.


So along time ago there was this guy named Josh12 on a forum. People were arguing what Josh's favourite colour was. One said "Well, someone way back said that it was green I think. He used the colour alot in his signature too". Another guy on the forum said, "There is still no way to tell if that was really his favourite colour".

The first person babbled nonsense which didn't have any valid statements that actually said that Josh's favourite colour was green. The second said "There is so still no evidence that it was green". Then the first person babbled herself out saying that her decision stood inconclusive and talked some more. The second guy then got tired of it, laid down the hammer, won the arguement. Seraph wins the superbowl.

Final decision. We still don't know what Josh12's favourite fucking color is. So shut the fuck up.
....Heavy P wins.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 11 2004, 09:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 11 2004, 09:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Heavy_P@Sep 11 2004, 09:51 PM
Thats theological, not historical, and I absolutely refuse to argue theology on forums. Its like arguing favorite colors or which flavor of icecream is better, its very subjective.


So along time ago there was this guy named Josh12 on a forum. People were arguing what Josh's favourite colour was. One said "Well, someone way back said that it was green I think. He used the colour alot in his signature too". Another guy on the forum said, "There is still no way to tell if that was really his favourite colour".

The first person babbled nonsense which didn't have any valid statements that actually said that Josh's favourite colour was green. The second said "There is so still no evidence that it was green". Then the first person babbled herself out saying that her decision stood inconclusive and talked some more. The second guy then got tired of it, laid down the hammer, won the arguement. Seraph wins the superbowl.

Final decision. We still don't know what Josh12's favourite fucking color is. So shut the fuck up.
....Heavy P wins. [/b][/quote]
He just said I won, and that you spoke nonsense...

[Mondracon]

No...he didn't say you won. I mentioned earlier that arguing theology was ridiculous as arguing favorite colors. He gave a good example.

And I did reply, but you said something to the effect that you couldn't be bothered to respond to it or didn't care, etc. etc.

All I see is you trying to carry on in any concievable manner, to force the answer you want to hear from me through pointless repettition, goading insults, etc. when the Nazareth is...inconclusive.

[Heavy_P]

The second guy then got tired of it, laid down the hammer, won the arguement.

Umm, second guy = Y the alien.

[Seraph]

Which was an oh-so subtle metaphor of you vs Y.

Guess who the first person who babbled nonsense is.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html - just to remind you.

[Y]

Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:57 PM
No...he didn't say you won. I mentioned earlier that arguing theology was ridiculous as arguing favorite colors. He gave a good example.
You are so goddamn illiterate, it hurts.

[SuperFusion]

Someone must feel hurt..

[Heavy_P]

Misst, Get the fuck out of this topic, forever.

[Y]

Originally posted by Heavy_P@Sep 11 2004, 10:01 PM
Misst, Get the fuck out of this topic, forever.
Quoted for truth

[Mondracon]

Oh yes, I see. Heavy wrote a parable, like Jesus would have done.

I just read the first paragraph because it didn't seem too important (sounded like some event that happened before I came to this forum). That was a mistake, sorry Heavy.

[Seraph]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

PRETTY INCONCLUSIVE.

[Y]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:05 PM
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

PRETTY UNCONCLUSIVE.
LAFF.

[SuperFusion]

The joke must be over by now....

[Heavy_P]

Oh god, if this doesn't make it into the archive forum, something's wrong. First time I've laughed out loud in a while.

[Mondracon]

If the site wasn't so blatantly subjective, I'd accept it at face value. But its like those sources for Jesus that are obviously subjective...questionable.

Which means...I'll have to research it more in depth.

[Y]

This is the awesomest thread we've had in awhile.

[Seraph]

Did you actually read it?

[Mondracon]

Because...everyone is pointlessly insulting? I thought all Insane was like that.

[Y]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:09 PM
Did you actually read it?
Oooh, burn.

[Y]

When this goes to Archive, I'm deleting misst's posts because, frankly, you're fucking ruining the tail end of a good thread.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:09 PM
Did you actually read it?
"For all who would struggle against the tragedy of religion."

"The Criminal History of the Christian Church."

"Christianity...Fraudulent and Evil ROTTEN – from beginning to end."

"Christianity is the worst disaster in human history."

Pardon me for not leaping for joy when I see a site so biased and INSTANTLY accepting everything written on it. Its like the Bible, only modern and written by Jesus-haters and not Jesus-lovers.

I will research the issue on my own, finding the primary sources.

Y provided a good, fairly non-biased source. The encylopedia was very good, its in my favorites for all time.

[Heavy_P]

My, Psuedo-Intellectualism so great. No matter how dIrect and blunt you are, it can't be recognized by lack of literacy.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Mondracon+Sep 11 2004, 09:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mondracon @ Sep 11 2004, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:09 PM
Did you actually read it?
"For all who would struggle against the tragedy of religion."

"The Criminal History of the Christian Church."

"Christianity...Fraudulent and Evil ROTTEN – from beginning to end."

"Christianity is the worst disaster in human history."

Pardon me for not leaping for joy when I see a site so biased and INSTANTLY accepting everything written on it. Its like the Bible, only modern and written by Jesus-haters and not Jesus-lovers.

I will research the issue on my own, finding the primary sources.

Y provided a good, fairly non-biased source. The encylopedia was very good, its in my favorites for all time. [/b][/quote]
Which is somewhat odd, because none of that could be found on the Nazareth page.

[Mondracon]

Har har. So clever Heavy.

Insults do not make good arguments or good rhetoric. I've been trying to avoid any at my opponent in the covnersation, Y (though I did slip once, my sincerest apologies, it was low of me.) However, the rest of you scallywags should skip town while you can because I haven't got any warnings, and I'm full ready to be nasty.

....

Oh yes now I remember...

Insults aren't scary or threatening, they are midly amusing and in the end pointless. Like your presence here.

[Y]

You know, we bluster because we already busted your ass on every issue you brought to the table, and you bluster because you fail to do so every time.

[Seraph]

You being nasty, oh I'm terrified. We have thesauruses ready for your gothic insults.

Oh yeah, if you actually read the site I linked instead of reading the wrong page, you'd find you have no argument at all. We win, I'm here all night.

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Seraph+Sep 11 2004, 10:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seraph @ Sep 11 2004, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mondracon@Sep 11 2004, 09:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:09 PM
Did you actually read it?
"For all who would struggle against the tragedy of religion."

"The Criminal History of the Christian Church."

"Christianity...Fraudulent and Evil ROTTEN – from beginning to end."

"Christianity is the worst disaster in human history."

Pardon me for not leaping for joy when I see a site so biased and INSTANTLY accepting everything written on it. Its like the Bible, only modern and written by Jesus-haters and not Jesus-lovers.

I will research the issue on my own, finding the primary sources.

Y provided a good, fairly non-biased source. The encylopedia was very good, its in my favorites for all time.
Which is somewhat odd, because none of that could be found on the Nazareth page. [/b][/quote]
Hit the "return to homepage" link. I like to know who is presenting the material and in what manner before I hoover it into my brain as FACT. Its called critical learning-- learning about the sources themselves and how it relates to the information being presented.


EDIT-- You are being pointlessly insulting and its sad. Not for me, but for you. I weep tears for you. Boo hoo. Wah wah. He called me gothic, OH TEH NOES.

[Seraph]

Well that's super. That's like going to SomethingAwful and neglecting the Comedy Goldmine because the front page is mostly text-based commentary. Super work.

Why don't you actually read the fucking article and see how it smashes the sources you've dragged up as well as archaeological fact? But of course, it has a nasty name so it must be wrong.

[Seraph]

I called your insults gothic. Not you. Again your illiteracy is triumphant above anything we could muster.

[Mondracon]

No, its what thinking people do before they just gobble down information blindly. I've already told you I'm looking into it, and your sight *IS* *OBVIOUSLY* *SUBJECTIVE* so I have every right to.

If I sent you a sight proving how all black people were actually 50 IQ points lower on average than caucasians and the main site presenting it was covered in KKK symbols and racist language you would have every right to be skeptical and make your own research into the veracity of that information.

[Gohi]

Originally posted by misst@Sep 11 2004, 10:10 PM
I( lieked when ckkewl Heavy dissed me,. THat was so kewl. LIke wow very funneh I lagughed out loud
misst, did you do some studying over summer vacation?! It looks like your spelling and grammar has improved! ;)

[Y]

I'm serious about deleting your fucking posts.

[Seraph]

Yeah, but reading the linked page doesn't mention any harsh anti-Christian sentiments. You just made things harder for yourself by doing pointless background research.

[SuperFusion]

Must we argue of such an petty subject? =/

[Y]

"I've got to investigate their beliefs so that when I find out they're vehement I can dismiss their info out of hand."

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:24 PM
I called your insults gothic. Not you. Again your illiteracy is triumphant above anything we could muster.
You called my insutls gothic thereby implying gothic attributes to myself. Is illteracy the ONLY insult you can think of? I can read, obviously, but when I'm tired I may miss some thing or in the case of Heavy P's parable, when not fully interested I will skim-read. That is, not give it the attention it probably deserves, for which I aplogized to poor Heavy, for not really caring what he said... :/

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Y@Sep 11 2004, 09:28 PM
"I've got to investigate their beliefs so that when I find out they're vehement I can dismiss their info out of hand."
When you say it like that...

[Mondracon]

Originally posted by Seraph@Sep 11 2004, 10:27 PM
Yeah, but reading the linked page doesn't mention any harsh anti-Christian sentiments. You just made things harder for yourself by doing pointless background research.
Yes...it does. Do you want a screen shot Seraph? Y references good, objective sources-- I respect that. You haven't.

[Gohi]

Mondracon & Misst: Please, just stop. You're embarassing yourselves. It isn't even funny anymore.

[Seraph]

Oh, even though the site I provided more or less agrees with the entire theory of Y vs Josephus and mine goes further by refuting archaeological evidence. Of course Y is the forum Jesus so I can't possibly compare, can I?

[Mondracon]

Seraph--You said it, not me.

[Heavy_P]

If I sent you a sight proving how all black people were actually 50 IQ points lower on average than caucasians and the main site presenting it was covered in KKK symbols and racist language you would have every right to be skeptical and make your own research into the veracity of that information.


Man, I keep looking for anti-semetic ,muslim and christian signs and language but I can't find it!? I can see certain books and articles that pertain to the subject that Jesus isn't real. Which isn't exactly hate proganda. OH NOES HELPZ!!!

[Y]

Locked for great justice. If you ever feel like continuing this discussion, make sure you fucking read about it first. If you're Mondracon, read it three times, and pray it got through.