| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"john p" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2007 02:24:07 AM |
| Object: |
Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRgnpqo0gdw&mode=related&search=
.
|
|
| User: "Gerald Bostock" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
19 Jul 2007 10:02:49 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 1:24 am, john p <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRgnpqo0gdw&mode=related&search=
It's amazing the discussion this video provoked. The really amazing
thing is that people think they can tell anything from this heavily
edited video.
Was the cameraman "in on it"? I think almost certainly. He knew what
was going to happen, that's why he was there.
Was this a set-up,as in were those really mormon missionaries or were
they confederates in a horribly clumsy attempt to make the mormons
look bad? Could be. The guys on the bikes might have been mormon
missionaries, but the guys in the beating scene could have been
entirely different guys, again confederates.
The whole thing could be fake or just parts of it could have been
faked.
Was the guy tackling the guy on the bike in the wrong? Yes.
Were the guys beating on the other giuy in the wrong? Yes.
Was the camera man in the wrong? Yes.
The whole thing is just wrong. You can't draw conclusions from this
crummy video.
The discussion (or lack of it) on turning the other cheek is
interesting. It seems you don't have to do what Jesus says if you
don't like it. Sort of like rich men and camels and laying aside
everything to follow him. Love your enemy as yourself and all that
rot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Younger Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
19 Jul 2007 11:58:12 PM |
|
|
Gerald Bostock wrote:
The discussion (or lack of it) on turning the other cheek is
interesting. It seems you don't have to do what Jesus says if you
don't like it. Sort of like rich men and camels and laying aside
everything to follow him. Love your enemy as yourself and all that
rot.
I didn't see the video, but as a Mormon I would like to comment on
"turn the other cheek." This rule clearly governs only inconsequential
personal offenses and insults. It forbids reacting violently or
responding with threats to "the evil one" who treats us this way, but it
does *not* tell us how to behave when threatened with real injury to our
person, or to our consequential property, or how to respond to
consequential threats to *others.* It tells Christians how to behave
without making asses of themselves when confronted with minor
inconveniences and insults.
My understanding of the Sermon is that Jesus was clarifying what is
just behavior under the law, not abrogating our rights under the law,
hence he is not denying the principles of just compensation or
forbidding self-defense, but stating that a right to compensation or
retaliation does not exist, except in cases where significant injury or
loss are threatened or sustained. Jesus forbade harming innocents, and
warned against living a violent life, but there is no suggestion that
Jesus was a pacifist, or that he denied a right of self-defense. His
actions speak for themselves.
He used premeditated violence in the temple.
He permitted his disciples to carry swords.
He commanded his disciples, "one who has no sword must sell his cloak
and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
He approvingly used examples of retaliatory violence in his parables.
He commended the centurion as an exemplar of faith.
Younger Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 06:54:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:58:12 -0600, Younger Smith <IMA@Mormonite.com>
wrote:
Gerald Bostock wrote:
The discussion (or lack of it) on turning the other cheek is
interesting. It seems you don't have to do what Jesus says if you
don't like it. Sort of like rich men and camels and laying aside
everything to follow him. Love your enemy as yourself and all that
rot.
I didn't see the video, but as a Mormon I would like to comment on
"turn the other cheek." This rule clearly governs only inconsequential
personal offenses and insults. It forbids reacting violently or
responding with threats to "the evil one" who treats us this way, but it
does *not* tell us how to behave when threatened with real injury to our
person, or to our consequential property, or how to respond to
consequential threats to *others.* It tells Christians how to behave
without making asses of themselves when confronted with minor
inconveniences and insults.
My understanding of the Sermon is that Jesus was clarifying what is
just behavior under the law, not abrogating our rights under the law,
hence he is not denying the principles of just compensation or
forbidding self-defense, but stating that a right to compensation or
retaliation does not exist, except in cases where significant injury or
loss are threatened or sustained. Jesus forbade harming innocents, and
warned against living a violent life, but there is no suggestion that
Jesus was a pacifist, or that he denied a right of self-defense. His
actions speak for themselves.
He used premeditated violence in the temple.
He permitted his disciples to carry swords.
He commanded his disciples, "one who has no sword must sell his cloak
and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
He approvingly used examples of retaliatory violence in his parables.
He commended the centurion as an exemplar of faith.
Younger Smith
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Grow up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Younger Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 07:24:03 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Hence someone who 'never existed' can be better than someone who did.
Younger Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 08:34:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:24:03 -0600, Younger Smith <IMA@Mormonite.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Hence someone who 'never existed' can be better than someone who did.
Younger Smith
Isn't your brain due for it's 500,000 mile service?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Younger Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 09:47:22 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:24:03 -0600, Younger Smith <IMA@Mormonite.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Hence someone who 'never existed' can be better than someone who did.
Younger Smith
Isn't your brain due for it's 500,000 mile service?
While I'm checking, tell me where you got yours!
Thanks in advance.
Younger Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
21 Jul 2007 11:48:38 AM |
|
|
Younger Smith wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:24:03 -0600, Younger Smith <IMA@Mormonite.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Hence someone who 'never existed' can be better than someone who
did. Younger Smith
Isn't your brain due for it's 500,000 mile service?
While I'm checking, tell me where you got yours!
Thanks in advance.
Younger Smith
That would be no help. Spare parts for that Yugo of yours are pretty scarce.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 09:34:02 AM |
|
|
Younger Smith wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
Jesus never existed.
Get over it.
Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, but at least he did exist.
Hence someone who 'never existed' can be better than someone who
did. Younger Smith
Yep, that is always the case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 07:33:56 AM |
|
|
Younger Smith wrote:
Gerald Bostock wrote:
The discussion (or lack of it) on turning the other cheek is
interesting. It seems you don't have to do what Jesus says if you
don't like it. Sort of like rich men and camels and laying aside
everything to follow him. Love your enemy as yourself and all that
rot.
I didn't see the video, but as a Mormon I would like to comment on
"turn the other cheek." This rule clearly governs only inconsequential
personal offenses and insults. It forbids reacting violently or
responding with threats to "the evil one" who treats us this way, but it
does *not* tell us how to behave when threatened with real injury to our
person, or to our consequential property, or how to respond to
consequential threats to *others.* It tells Christians how to behave
without making asses of themselves when confronted with minor
inconveniences and insults.
My understanding of the Sermon is that Jesus was clarifying what is
just behavior under the law, not abrogating our rights under the law,
hence he is not denying the principles of just compensation or
forbidding self-defense, but stating that a right to compensation or
retaliation does not exist, except in cases where significant injury or
loss are threatened or sustained. Jesus forbade harming innocents, and
warned against living a violent life, but there is no suggestion that
Jesus was a pacifist, or that he denied a right of self-defense. His
actions speak for themselves.
He used premeditated violence in the temple.
He permitted his disciples to carry swords.
He commanded his disciples, "one who has no sword must sell his cloak
and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
He approvingly used examples of retaliatory violence in his parables.
He commended the centurion as an exemplar of faith.
Younger Smith
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Younger Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 08:06:50 AM |
|
|
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 08:20:26 AM |
|
|
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 08:42:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 09:19:40 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 09:43:24 AM |
|
|
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 10:02:22 AM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 11:20:39 AM |
|
|
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 11:49:35 AM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 12:21:10 PM |
|
|
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Care to explain why?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 01:33:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 01:40:39 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 08:45:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 09:02:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
Again what you say must be true just because you say so. It appears that
you consider yourself a big cheese of the atheist newsgroup. LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 10:18:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:02:07 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
Again what you say must be true just because you say so. It appears that
you consider yourself a big cheese of the atheist newsgroup. LOL!
How old are you?
Why do you back away from supplying nextant contemporary evidence, and
slide into ad hominems?
Is it because you do not have this evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
21 Jul 2007 09:19:05 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:02:07 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
Again what you say must be true just because you say so. It appears that
you consider yourself a big cheese of the atheist newsgroup. LOL!
How old are you?
Why do you back away from supplying nextant contemporary evidence, and
slide into ad hominems?
Is it because you do not have this evidence?
I've already presented self-evident evidence in this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
21 Jul 2007 09:24:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:19:05 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:02:07 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
Again what you say must be true just because you say so. It appears that
you consider yourself a big cheese of the atheist newsgroup. LOL!
How old are you?
Why do you back away from supplying nextant contemporary evidence, and
slide into ad hominems?
Is it because you do not have this evidence?
I've already presented self-evident evidence in this thread.
Where, liar?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
21 Jul 2007 06:56:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:24:23 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:19:05 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:02:07 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:40:39 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:10 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktaylor@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com> wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Why is it inaccurate?
I've noticed this a lot.
We explain why we disagree. They just parrot that we're wrong without
saying why, and go on the attack rather than addressing the
objections.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
He can't.
They just post a list of regurgitated crap they haven't bothered to
check for themselves.
Which we've all of us heard too many times before. And checked for
ourselves.
All it would take is one single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
But instead of that they just drop names. Are the names meant to be
evidence?
All a large quantity of crap does, is confirm that it is crap.
Are their personal lies meant to be evidence?
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim. If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Worse than that. The historian closest to the alleged events, Philo
Judea who was related by marriage to, and a business associate of
Herod Agrippa, makes no mention of them.
And then there is Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus who
lived in Galilee. His writings are lost but Photius a few hundred
years later, lamented that he made no mention of it.
Care to explain why?
Help arrives from a fellow true believer - just like the Christian
apologists do. Ha Ha Ha...
Does it hurt to be forced to resort to lies and personal abuse,
instead of admitting that you just plain wrong?
There is NO extant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Your regurgitated nonsense has been debunked ages ago, some of it
before 1900.
Again what you say must be true just because you say so. It appears that
you consider yourself a big cheese of the atheist newsgroup. LOL!
How old are you?
Why do you back away from supplying nextant contemporary evidence, and
slide into ad hominems?
Is it because you do not have this evidence?
I've already presented self-evident evidence in this thread.
Where, liar?
I think he may still be feebly clinging to the thought that the load
of discredited dross that he dredged from the Xtian Cess-pits somehow
constitues "Self-evident evidence", whatever the ***** that means.
You are right Mr. Lee.
He has been "called" on an unsupportable claim.
A real man would simply admit this, and hunt for other evidence.
But oh no, the immature xtian liar must stick to their guns, for some
reason or another.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 12:35:58 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
You made the claims, YOU back them up.
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim.
If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
I don't know what link you're referring to. And I didn't refer to Jesus
as a "god man."
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Care to explain why?
I didn't say anything about confirming the Bible or the Divinity of Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Mormon Missionaries Get Revenge on Bike Thief |
20 Jul 2007 12:49:54 PM |
|
|
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:20:26 -0300, John Manning
<jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote:
Younger Smith wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Younger Smith claims he is a Mormon yet also claims that the Book of
Mormon isn't legitimate. Is this guy nuts or what?
As I suspected, John doesn't know the difference between "authentic"
and "legitimate." It is in the nature of religion that fiction is
/legitimate/ in forming its basis. This is not true for the sciences,
which require their bases to be /authentic/.
Younger Smith
Christians are Christians based on the REALITY of Jesus Christ. You are
a Mormon based on the FICTION of the Book of Mormon?
What "REALITY of Jesus Christ"?
The Gospels are a mish-mash of earlier myths and legends retold in the
setting of first century Palestine. Getting basic facts wrong.
You believe a made-up fairy story just as the Mormons do. In your own
words "FICTION".
To deny that Jesus Christ existed is a bit far fetched.
No more so then to deny that Krishna existed. No objective evidence for
either of the god men, or dozens of others down recorded history.
And don't even bother with the tired and useless "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" crap.
False assumption that he existed damns that argument from the start.
Oh, and the, "Why would they die for a lie?" ploy is also a dead end, millions
of people have died for lies down through history, xters are nothing special.
Josephus you say. Well, the mighty Josephus was not a contemporary of the
god man, further, he apparently found the events of Matthew 27 just too mundane
to report on them. So did the rest of the known world for that matter.
Jesus is a mythical construct, nothing more, nothing less. It's a story, and a
pretty poor story at that. Besides, would you really want to follow the person
that is credited with uttering Luke 14?
The Nag Hammadi writings. The history of Rome. The history of the
Christian tradition. Willful blindness is convenient for those who
cherish their 'beliefs' otherwise. You're just as bad as some of the
Christian 'true believers'. You both suffer from True Believer Syndrome.
The Nag Hammadi writings: Not contemporary, missed events, missed people.
conclusion: not evidence of an historical Jesus as described in the bible.
The history of Rome: No mention of the biblical Jesus, no mention of biblical
events, no mention of followers of biblical Jesus. Conclusion: Not evidence
of Jesus described in the bible.
The history of the Christian tradition: No different then the history of the
Hindu tradition, or Muslim tradition. Conclusion: not evidence of an historical
Jesus as described in the bible.
You really are not very good at this are you?
Practically everything you've claimed above is inaccurate. Not very
impressive, fella.
Really? So then, you'd be able to actually post the pertinent documentation to
refute my observations?
You made the claims, YOU back them up.
Excuse me, you posted the supposed evidence to support your claim, I find if faulty
for the reasons posted. Now it is your turn to present your evidence to refute.
Like I said, you really are not very good at this.
I read what was at your link, it does not support your claim.
If you have objective
evidence that this god man actually walked and talked, I for one would be very interested
in seeing it. The URL you posted however, does not support the assertion.
I don't know what link you're referring to. And I didn't refer to Jesus
as a "god man."
Oh, so now your URL about the Nag is not valid? Yes, I do read other parts of a thread.
Further more, I have read Roman history, that too does not support the claim. In fact,
Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Jewish and Sumerian histories all confirm each other, but
strangely do not confirm the bible or your claim of a walking god man.
Care to explain why?
I didn't say anything about confirming the Bible or the Divinity of Jesus.
You didn't, except to say the denying the Jesus was real was an issue. The bible is the ONLY
place that describes and states that Jesus was real, and claims he is a god man.
I dispute the bible and it's lack of collaborating evidence from external sources. Now, if you
have actual objective evidence that this Jesus fellow walked and talked, present it. So far
however, I stand by my denial of the mans existence. You have presented nothing to change that.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
