Internet Revisionists Beware: Real Facts Being Released to Public!

I'm glad that you liked it. To answer your question..no, we have not ever been in a discussion. I don't normally reply to these types of threads because they are pointless. The one thing I can relate to in this thread is the comment someone made about religion being forced down the throats of those who dare to think outside of the box. I've experienced the same thing many times in my life as well. The sad thing is that the majority of the people who do that are complete hypocrites. They seem more concerned about debating the existence of god/jesus and condemning those who hold different religious beliefs than they do about Jesus' teachings.

 

Then how do you determine what are Jesus Teachings or Not?
By going by 'Feelings' or by establishing a historical record, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and trustworthiness of the records?
The latter being 'Pointless'?

What are you getting at?

 

Pardon my interruption Erasmus70, but wouldn't Zer0_II be using the very same discretionary impules that you and everyone else also presumeably use? Are not "feelings" the very way that soul communicates with body & mind?
What "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" exists to establish NT biblical credibility? I do believe that in the absence of any historical or credible evidence in support on the NT that "faith" plays the greater part in christian belief. Is that assertion wrong?

 

Your assertion is wrong.
'Faith' may very well be things hoped for but not yet seen - BECAUSE - of objective evidence in things we have seen already.

Please do not play dumb and ask me what evidence exists when you can already see us combing through it here in this thread.

Again, in between the presence of historical and credible evidence you are making faith based assumptions which are based on that real objective evidence in the first place.
You might see someone enter an elevator on the 1st floor and when it comes back he is gone.
Now you can prove to me or yourself that elevator take you to the 9th floor or that a 9th floor even exists.
You dont actually know that.
You have faith it will.
Why?
Is that because you are 'relying on feelings' in the absence of credible evidence?
Well if thats what you want to call objective faith based on reason then feel free I guess.
I would suggest 'feelings' are what 'follow' what you think first.
Dont you agree?

 

'Faith' may very well be things hoped for but not yet seen - BECAUSE - of objective evidence in things we have seen already.
"objective evidence" being....... supposition??
Please do not play dumb and ask me what evidence exists when you can already see us combing through it here in this thread.
"Evidence"? What "evidence"??
making faith based assumptions which are based on that real objective evidence in the first place
As above ~ what "evidence"??
I would suggest 'feelings' are what 'follow' what you think first.
Thought precedes feeling? You're not serious, surely??

PS ~ the elevator metaphopr is a precluded presumption. Fact is you can take an elevator and find truth exists. Unlike religious belief that relies upon supposition & presumption.

 

There is an interesting look at life and the meaning of life at the David Icke forum. The posters name is 'Solve et Coagula'. Link to http://www.davidickeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=212002

 

Faith and religion should be personal matters in my opinion. If you are convinced of his existence, why doesn't that satisfy you? Do you need others to reassure you? Evidence of Jesus and his divinity (I know that's not what this thread is about) cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt though. There will always be people with doubts, and you should learn to accept that. That's why the thread is pointless. Either Jesus existed or he didn't. You aren't going to change that fact, and chances are you aren't going to effect anyone's personal belief about whether he did or didn't with this thread either.

 

Erasmus, I've got a debating tip for you: Instead of attacking your opponent and saying you have tons of support for your side, why not provide that support? I would personally like to hear you reply to the final quote in post #86. It seems like you argued yourself into a corner and are biting and scratching to get out. And denying you're in a corner.
May of your posts are just you getting personal with someone and not backing up your views.

 

I don't see the point to that Freaker. Personally I never really believed that Erasmus was purposely denying the existance of the gnostics. I figured he had just gotten careless in his wording and I decided to take advantage of that.

Basiscally Erasmus and I were having an asshole contest and if I "won" it just means I'm a bigger asshole.

anyway it's all offtopic.

why stir that pot up again?

 

I think its cute how you guys (see all three above) are doing that gimmick where you 'pretend as if nothing is happening'.
Especially when evidence is being established and then you post something like 'What evidence?'
"Here is a tip.. give us evidence"

These sorts of things.
Its weird but fun.

 

Ah, I get it.
Still, it seems to me that erasmus has let faulty arguments stand.

 

Please re-read my post. I never attempted to deny the fact that you were trying to establish evidence. I just said that it was impossible to prove that Jesus existed without a reasonable doubt. You might be able to prove it to yourself, but not to others. I wasn't attempting to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus in any of my posts though. It would be just as pointless for me to do so. You seem to have missed my point.

 

Erasmus you should try to read on David Icke theory about who and how the NT was written. It is in one of its book, i dont remember which. U can download one of them with your mp3 downloader I think (if you have one).
Again, I don't say who is right or wrong, I don't care, I think it could help you understanding those who you think disapprove with you.

 

I think it's cute how you shrink away self-righteously pretending that nothing ever happened every time that you and your religious deceits are exposed as fraudulent concoctions of supposition.

 

The word you are looking for right now to describe yourself is 'Projecting'.

Face it Mr.Ree, you are so damm screwed right now that you are actually trying to derail this thread into a personal 'flame baiting' experiment.

Baby need a bottle?

 

Bounce Bounce Bounce Bounce Avoidance Bounce
You must have learned your debating technique from "The Life of Brian" ~ run away! run away!

 

Yes, that explains why I have made repeated and ongoing posts about external, historic evidence that lends credibility to the Gospels as real and accurate documents.

Not sure if you noticed that or not?
Idiot.

 

Erasmus, I suggested you something since the first page of the thread, and actually I think that it can bring you more than those 12 pages, no disrespect to you or every people who posted here

Peace

 

You must be calling me that name while you're looking in the mirror!
Josephus ~
christian scholars recognise the josephus entries as 3rd century forgeries, and clumsy one's at that. reference catholic encyclopaedia.
Tacitus ~ Cites a person named "judas khrestus" in his one and only documentation of crucifixion in "Annals". Absent ~ jesus; Christ. Present JUdas Khrestus.
Pliny ~ irrelevant "join the dots" and guess. Khrestians indeed existed, but not 'christians." see above Judas Khrestus.
Babylonian talmud ~ deceitful straw-grasping imagination stretch, easpecially when your "verification" link is to a CHRISTIAN BIBLE.
Lucian ~ "khrestians" or convenient re-transalation "christian"?? Your source? (I'm betting apologia).
Mara Barsarpion ~ which king, which era, which jewish tribe is not mentioned. Another straw-grasping guessing exercise.
Thallus ~ No dates, no era's, no jesus. But an eclipse, perhaps. Ditto ditto Another straw-grasping guessing exercise.
Phlegon ~ as above No dates, no era's, no jesus. But an eclipse, perhaps. Ditto ditto Another straw-grasping guessing exercise.
Seutonius ~ Ahhh, a name at last!! And guess whose name it is??? ~ Khrestus ~ better known to genuine (non-deceitful) biblical scholars as JUDAS KHRESTUS. The lie exposed!!
Celsus ~ "criticizes gospels"....... so? Doesn't every thinking person?? If celsus criticizes the gospels, then he's also criticizing it's principles and foundation.
Julian ~ parrots the state religion. So?????
Clement ~ parrots the state church. So?????

Well that covers your "page one", and still there is no "evidence' in the "evidence" that you purport, but rather a litany of presumption, assumption, pin-the-tail-on-the-donket dot joining of such laxity it defies intelligence, sanity, sensibility and reason.
You must really get off on self inflicted humiliation Erasmus70

 

You got it part right freaker. He's go the faults down pat, but there was never ay "argument."