1. When a guy distorts the quotes and writings of scholars..as you just did. my only response is this... "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]" 2. I know variables are hard for you to understand but I own a business with multiple machines and I work from multiple places. Some of those machines allow multiple people to login. So I have decided to allow only one machine to login as JEM for the time being. Get over you one login concept that only works for people trading in their underwear from home. (which is not a bad thing if you are profitable.) "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
You know really, if you have nothing sensible to say, why don't you just shut up. The only things distorted here are the Josephus text, your argument, and you. WTF are you saying now .....You can use any computer to login ET as Jem. Who the hell are you trying to kid. You've been rumbled as a schizo creating another user name in order to talk of yourself as if you were someone else. That is totally weird man. In this thread as in others, you won't admit you've made a mistake and a complete and utter ass of yourself and this time manifested a mental health problem too. For f'ks sake stay away from sharp objects.
So jem, you're a lawyer... Did the Jews "kill" Jesus, by voting to have him killed? Or is it still technically the Romans who did it?
Ricter, Jem told me he can not log in on this computer so he asked that I write this. I own a business with multiple machines and I work from multiple places. Some of those machines allow multiple people to login. So I have decided to allow only one machine to login as JEM for the time being. I am lawyer, so I shall site the well known phrase Habeas Corpulent. I'll have to get back you as my computer isn't working at the moment. Firefox as playing up so I've had to use this login. I know you will understand how that makes perfect sense. I shall respond again and site some jurisprudence res-judica which "proves" that although Jesus was "killed", the Jews did not "kill" him. The proper response would be there is no reason to blame any groups in modern times. Apart from the full of shit talking zealots. Nor did the Romans technically "kill" him , as The scholarly mainstream say there is a problem in "law" because he got up and "walked" off after a few days never to be seen again. There are of course just some bozo bullshit zealots who say some things as well.
Ok thanks for the softball .. what is your definition of proximate cause? 1. Lets establish that a man named Jesus lived. luckily not only are there gnostic texts and the source documents for the bible but there are many references to him in historical accounts. One jewish historian referenced him twice. One of the passages is disputed but the other is only disputed by non scholar "jesus is a myth" bozos.
1. Lets establish that a man named Jesus lived. No one in history has ever done that. luckily not only are there gnostic texts unluckily for you, gnostic texts do not constitute historical evidence that Jesus ever existed the source documents for the bible stories in narrative form do not constitute historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. many references to him in historical accounts no references anywhere are in the form of historical evidence that Jesus ever existed One jewish historian referenced him twice. One of the passages is disputed but the other is only disputed by non scholar "jesus is a myth" bozos. One jewish historian's account is generally accepted as a forgery. All of One jewish historian's accounts of Jesus are disputed by historians against being genuine and by a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament studies. The only claims that Jesus existed come from Christian apologists. There really is no historical Jesus. Just as there is no historical Romulus.
1. Why don't you source your deceptions. Show us who the scholars are who dispute the validity of the virtually undisputed passage. Your comments are lies and distortions of facts. Your beliefs about what they meant do not amount to scholars disputing the validity. You are a crafty bullshitter. And that is why real scholars would not deal with you.... "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
I gave you a scholar. A pre-eminent christian scholar. Not liking what he says, you ignorantly dismissed the learned man like the moron you are by calling him a bozo media whore. There is no point in me quoting scholars when you act like a complete tool that way. And the silly quote you keep repeating does pretty much the same thing, but less boorishly than you. There is no evidence for a historical Jesus so instead of refuting that by producing irrefutable historical evidence, the angle is to dismiss all the evidence out of hand that does establish Jesus a fictional character. On top of all that there are some very basic common sense reasons why Jesus is not a historical entity. You don't actually need any scholars to see it. If you had any ground to stand on at all you would stop ignoring every argument I make in that regard. Go back and just look at the mess you made in this thread. You really must be nearly too dumb to breathe.
"your" scholar's quote was connected to the TF not the undisputed passage. Why are you lying? Why is your atheist zeal so high that you would lie about the quotes you produced just a few pages ago. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
Yes, why are you lying? It is your quote, you linked it. And your weirdo screen name split personality schizophrenia. What's that all about? The apologist scholarly mainstream not only inexplicably ignores the fact that there is nothing that stands as historical evidence for a biblical Jesus , but remains woefully inadequate in identifying no serious methodological deficiencies in their not accepting the fact that christians merely engaging other christians, does not constitute historical evidence for a Jesus Christ. Nonsense is nonsense. The christian apologists' study of nonsense is called biblical scholarship.