So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's rare that I need to look up a word. Historicity is a new one for me.

But it's boring. Much more interesting to discuss Jesus in terms of his story.

This discussion is ironic go gooo!

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This discussion is ironic go gooo!

Trolling poor HBB!

Here's an interesting rant from Daldolma's hero, Bart Ehrman: . What makes it so interesting to me is that Ehrman is similarly pissed than anyone challenge the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (y so mad bro?). Can you spot the rampant logical fallacies?

Ehrman's PhD is in theology.

I have issues with crackers. Also, I'm kind of drunk.

[Alawen]

EZ board not so EZ. Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This discussion is ironic go gooo!

In that you are attempting to troll me for using words incorrectly, this is true.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

/profound

[hatelore]

I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha! That was an amazing read I must admit.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

Ad hominem galore.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

That's a lot of words from someone who apparently doesn't understand what common knowledge means in an academic sense.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by hatelore [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

/profound

Originally Posted by hatelore [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha! That was an amazing read I must admit.

You're an idiot.