Ah - good one. I am glad you grasp the meaning. So that means you are not claiming to be All-Knowing about the topic of God? I will admit I am definitely not All-Knowing about Batman (though I never did like the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version).
Regarding the res judicata login -- Try this. Leave your house, start a business and login to elitetrader. Then let other people who post on elitetrader use those computers sometimes. Then get back to me. Regarding your other spew of Stu. Your writing is so fraudulent you act as if every scholar who says jesus is an historical person is a christian apologist. When you quote scholars I will respond. Arguing with you zealouts who do not have the integrity to support their arguments is like arguing with someone saying the moon is made of cheese.
No I won't be trying that. You were caught and called out attempting to boost some support for yourself with a new screen name and now you look a complete tool, if not insane, by struggling to lie your way out. It's indicative of the insanity that keeps you from dealing with reality. Christian historians do not pretend Josephus is historicity of jesus. Christian apologists do. The argument is fully supported. When scholars are quoted who don't agree with your religious excuses you call them bozo media whores. You have no argument and cannot come to terms with the reality of a non historical Jesus , so as usual resort to childish name calling and silly statements, with some insanity thrown in. But in the end it is a fact , no historian has at any time ever provided any argument that will stand as historicity for bible Jesus . The reason why is very strightforward. There is NOTHING historically that characteristically establishes bible Jesus as authentic . There is NO historicity of Jesus.
You keep speaking of the very absolutes you say it is wrong to keep speaking of! If you talk about who killed Jesus, it is basically comparable to posing a question about who killed Batman, or any other fictional/mythical character. People are perfectly entitled to treat the Bible as if it wasn't a 2000 year old DC Comic, but essentially that IS what the Bible is.
You say it is a common mistake to speak in absolutes, but you keep speaking in absolutes and keep asking me to answer in absolutes. Do you really think one would have to be "All-knowing" about Batman to recognize he is a fictional figure.? Likewise, how come one would need to speak in "All-knowing" absolutes to recognize how Jesus / God are fictional figures?
Why do you find it difficult to answer the question? Are you All-Knowing on the topic of God? A 'yes' or 'no' will do.
caught? you are a fraud.... the machines are in different zip codes with different service providers. I let people know it was me. "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]"
Oh - ok. I see what you are saying. So, since you are not speaking in absolutes (and therefore not speaking as All-Knowing), you are allowing for the possibility of God to exist, since you are not declaring God as non-existent in absolute terms.
Lol, I tried that tack with him. He will not even go that tiny distance. That's why I made my statement that I think he fears if he admitted there was probably a Jesus, even if only an ordinary man, then he thinks he would have to admit a God created the universe in 6 days. Which is a false conclusion of course, one is not compelled, logically, by the former, to admit the latter.