Author
|
Topic: Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request. (Read 2132 times) |
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.38
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
 
|
 |
Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« on: 2007-11-11 03:19:22 » |
 |
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-11-10 18:32:57 [Hermit 24] If you want further discourse, do not reply here. Instead, istantiate a thread on the Religious forum, answer the questions posed to you and provide the requested substantiation and sources for your assertions to date. Until you attempt to do that, your destroyed credibility will count against your receiving any more attention than any common or garden troll.
Hermit
|
Ok, so you basically just wanted me to further support my "assertions" regarding Jesus, right (to sum it up in a nutshell)?
Substantiatable substantiation, sources and elaboration yet? Perhaps now you can see why there are so many *confused people* (such as me) around.
Let me further go into Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus (a source I've noted that some of you rather like).
This site basically gives a whole lot of sources, all of which seem to be legimate. Take a look for yourselves.
Here are some snippets of things in favour of god's existence from that wikipedia page:
Quote:| The most detailed sources of historical information about Jesus in the Bible are the four canonical Gospels: the Gospel of Matthew; the Gospel of Mark; the Gospel of Luke; and the Gospel of John.[7] These Gospels are narrative accounts of the life of Jesus. They concentrate on his ministry, and conclude with his death and resurrection. The extent to which these sources are interrelated, or used related source material, is known as the synoptic problem. |
It then expands on the accuracy/inaccuracy issue, but it's all good reading...
Quote:| Jesus is also the subject of the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who dictated[17] letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life, though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions. |
Again, not conclusive, but this stuff adds up...
Quote:| The authors whose works are contained in the New Testament sometimes quote from creeds, or confessions of faith, that obviously predate their writings. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. |
That's the first of a few paragraphs, and something I had missed myself as an example of possible evidence of Jesus' existence...
Quote:New Testament apocrypha
Jesus is a large factor in New Testament apocrypha, works excluded from the canon as it developed because they were judged not to be inspired. These texts are almost entirely dated to the mid second century or later, though a few texts, such as the Didache, may be first century in origin. |
Excluded from the record in many cases, but if some does indeed date back to first century times, this could very well support Jesus' life depending on the content in question...
Quote:| the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in a historical sense. |
A Gnostic text, and one which while possibly fabricated like anything from those times can be, one which could very well be accurate...
Quote:| Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome (c. 100),[32] Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[33] Justin Martyr,[34] and others. |
These guys were around a century later. A hundred years is a long time, but they have said a few choice bits and some go into detail. Perhaps some of these ancient peeps did their homework back when the bread trail was still fresh. Or not as it's unsafe to assume anything, but it's another of those things which point at Jesus existing...
Quote:Flavius Josephus (c. 37?c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[40] though a few have raised doubts.[41]
More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[42] |
A possible valid source, and one who was not Christian neither... I'd say so far he is probably the most impartial snippet I've included...
That said, the article does go on to say that the original version may have been corrupted... *sighs*
Quote:Tacitus (c. 56?c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50] |
Another snippet, and also one which may or may not be accurate...
And there are more sources there too as well as a section closer to the end explaining exactly why some historians refuse to believe in Jesus' existence...
I guess all I'm trying to say, is that while there's nothing absolutely conclusive either way, there seems to be a lot of snippets from various sources, which leads me to reasonably believe Jesus did exist, regardless of the issue of whether or not he was in any way 'supernatural'. Full of holes perhaps, but then there's less to say Jesus never existed. And who, praytell, are all these historians who deny his existence? Because as far as I know, it's pretty much agreed by people that Jesus existed.
Does anyone have a plethora of sources, as well as historians, to the contary?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #1 on: 2007-11-12 16:15:33 » |
|
Meta Response
[Hermit 2] I see you that you are borrowing extensively from the forum at , http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=df91da92a61214fb9132665998df2bbd&t=57768 even though you are represented there (e.g. Sasquatch #8 ). For example, you have quoted "You're right, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't exist. It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?" [Jintatsu] and "Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy. Who knows? Maybe someday I'll join them. Until then, have a nice day.." [Behemoth] without bothering to reference them. I also see that somebody has elected to copy Blunderov [Cell #12] and my [Nin` #17] works wholesale, without attribution.
[Hermit 2] I'm unimpressed. This together with your inability to reply to direct questions earns you a rating of 2 from me. While your moving to a more appropriate board allowed you to avoid a 1 rating, I consider what you have been engaged in here to be sufficiently offensive to cross post this introduction to the original thread.
[Hermit 2] Continuing, I still don't know which one of the mutually and self contradictory Jesus characters you are attempting to argue for. This makes any response to your horribly confused postings (as patched together from fragments of others writings as the Christians' babble it seems) challenging. Reminder:
[ Hermit 24] You have made unsupported and self-contradictory claims. There are numerous Jesus possibilities enumerated, identified and referenced in my previous post. The revolting racist bigot and supporter of slavery and religious war, Jesus of the Bible, who some non-theological academic historians see as being clearly an amalgam of other characters with added nastiness. The prototypical religious Bronze-age Jesus, possibly an Egyptian, who originated the Sermon on the Mount sometime around or before c2600 BCE. The prototypical Jewish Jesus, the zealot brother of James, and a insurrectionist belonging to a wacko communist, fundamentalist, revolutionary religious group, well documented by their writings. And then there is the mythical Jesus sweet and mild, existing only, so far as I am aware, in the imagination of fervid believers.
[ Hermit 24] Which of these identities do you imagine you can substantiate (with evidence) as equivalent to an historical instance of the biblical Jesus? Or are you speaking of somebody else? Which of them do you imagine is asserted to be a superman and by which group?
[Hermit 2] I have read your sources. You have a problem. You provide both Christian and non-Christian Sources. The Christian sources must be discounted as their entire thesis is to prove the existence of Jesus, not to question it and so nothing written by a Christian, which can be derived from the babble, can be considered confirmatory. It doesn't matter how many times something is copied, the copies cannot provide confirmation of their source. This leaves you with only your non-Christian sources. And your non-Christian sources refer to both "Christian Criticism" (e.g. "The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true" CS Lewis) and "Skeptical criticism" ( Jesus never existed in the first place, and ... attempts to use the gospels to reconstruct his life give the gospels too much credit). These are clearly referenced by your source at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis yet not mentioned by you. I recommend that you study that work and will cite it as an unimpeachable source ([Sasquatch] "This site basically gives a whole lot of sources, all of which seem to be legimate.[Hermit: Sic]") (introduced by you) infra.
[Hermit 2] It is important to recognize that while Jesus of the babble as a complete myth can be argued against, that Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus introduced us to a detailed view of Jesus of the Community of the Poor who, although he appears in my view to be the best candidate for a Jewish prototype for the Jesus of the babble, is a very different person from Jesus of the babble as currently projected. Meaning that the prototype fails unless the perception of Jesus of the Bible is brought back into alignment with the brother of James. Who was an armed terrorist supporting communism and insisting on a return to strict Mosaic law - no silly waffling about loving your neighbors to be found there. In addition, there are numerous Bronze age proto-Jesus sources about whom we know little beyond their stories, and the words and sometimes actions of their ceremonies, but which undoubtedly predate Jesus of the babble, and most of which appear significantly nicer and very much more credible. Early Christians attempted to address this by explaining that the devil copied Christian practices before Jesus was born (e.g. Justin Martyr (one of the Luminous liars)).
[Hermit 2] This leads to a dilemma - your dilemma - as you have the burden of proof (and I regard the entire turgid mess tiresome and undeserving of my attention). Before you attempt to defend any part of the Jesus of the babble you are obliged to determine which of the prototypes you are applying. If you cannot show a particular prototype as applying, then the question of an historical prototype becomes moot. This takes us back to the fact that the burden of proof is yours and I don't think you can sustain, let alone prove your thesis.
[Hermit 2] Below I put your "Jesus in the babble" on one side, as that can only show the biblical side of the question at hand, and that the babble refers to a Jesus is not in dispute. An historical Jesus matching the babble's Jesus is the elusive character you have to find.
[Hermit 2] In other words, your challenge is how to support the biblical Jesus, as an historical persona (historical in the modern sense as opposed to the contemporaneous habit of inventing fantastic biographies). Adding to your difficulty is that even if I were inclined to accept textual analysis of the babble as indicative (which I am not), it is completely unreliable as a source of information. For example, looking just at the birth narratives of Jesus, we find grammatical aberrations indicating composition from diverse stories (e.g. in Luke 1:26-37 there is tense confusion between the announcing angel's use of the future tense and the engaged Mary's use of the past tense), historical fabrication (e.g. Herod was hated for many reasons, but even Josephus, who made extensive lists of Herod's crimes failed to mention the "slaughter of the innocents" which would have been far more infamous than the crimes which were attributed to him), chronological anachronisms (e.g. Herod died a decade before the census of Quirinius - which was of Judeah only, not "all the world"; Decapolis was only founded in the time of Nero), geographical anomalies (Sidon is North of Tyre and Galilee, Decapolis is South of Tyre and Galilee. Nobody in their right minds would pass through both while going from Tyre to Galilee.) and internal contradictions (e.g. The announcement of Jesus' birth to Joseph in Matt 1:20-24 and to Mary in Luke 1:26- 38) all of which strongly indicate that like the rest of the babble, the birth narrative was a deliberate fabrication to place the author's preferred "messiah" squarely into the "prophesy" that a Jewish "messiah" would come from Bethlehem. All of this ought to raise the question in your mind, one I would like to see you answer, of why an invented birth fable is required for a "real historical person"
Specific Response
[ Hermit 24] If you want further discourse, do not reply here. Instead, instantiate a thread on the Religious forum, answer the questions posed to you and provide the requested substantiation and sources for your assertions to date. Until you attempt to do that, your destroyed credibility will count against your receiving any more attention than any common or garden troll.
[Sasquatch 1] Ok, so you basically just wanted me to further support my "assertions" regarding Jesus, right (to sum it up in a nutshell)?
[Hermit 2] No. As I emphasized above, there were 3 requests:[1] instantiate a thread on the Religious forum
[2] answer the questions posed to you and
[3] provide the requested substantiation and sources for your assertions to date
[Hermit 2] You have now performed 1, omitted 2 and 3, and provided a new series of claims.
[Sasquatch 1] Substantiatable substantiation, sources and elaboration yet? Perhaps now you can see why there are so many *confused people* (such as me) around.
[Hermit 2] Acknowledges that Sasquatch that appears confused.
[Sasquatch 1] Let me further go into Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus (a source I've noted that some of you rather like).
[Sasquatch 1] This site basically gives a whole lot of sources, all of which seem to be legimate. Take a look for yourselves.
[Sasquatch 1] Here are some snippets of things in favour of god's existence from that wikipedia page:
[Hermit 2] And here you fall off the tracks. Wikipedia does not speak to the existence or otherwise of gods and even if it did, it would not be relevant to your thesis of an historical Jesus.
[Sasquatch 1] The extent to which these sources are interrelated, or used related source material, is known as the synoptic problem... though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions. Again, not conclusive, but this stuff adds up...
[Hermit 2] "This stuff" does not add up. Neither visions nor heavily edited imaginative scribblings help your thesis of an historical Jesus.
[Sasquatch 1] ...Scholars suppose...
[Hermit 2] What scholars suppose about what is in the babble does not help your thesis of an historical Jesus.
[Sasquatch 1] That's the first of a few paragraphs, and something I had missed myself as an example of possible evidence of Jesus' existence...
[Hermit 2] What is "possible evidence of Jesus' existence"?
[Sasquatch 1] Quote: / New Testament apocrypha / Jesus is a large factor in New Testament apocrypha, works excluded from the canon as it developed because they were judged not to be inspired. These texts are almost entirely dated to the mid second century or later, though a few texts, such as the Didache, may be first century in origin. / Excluded from the record in many cases, but if some does indeed date back to first century times, this could very well support Jesus' life depending on the content in question...
[Hermit 2] I generally prefer works that supporters reject, but even if one of the documents, copied by acknowledged professional liars, produced at best many decades after the last person who might have known an historical prototype had died, turns out to have been written a century earlier than most dating suggests, it still would not speak to the historic prototype you need to support. No matter how you wish it did.
[Sasquatch 1] Quote:/ the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in a historical sense. / A Gnostic text, and one which while possibly fabricated like anything from those times can be, one which could very well be accurate...
[Hermit 2] Even if it were not "possibly fabricated," seeing as you acknowledge it does not speak to "a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in a historical sense" (but in fact refers to the Gnostic Jesus of Egypt which predates the Jewish Jesus by 2600 or so years) I do not understand why you are raising it unless your thesis is that the historic Jesus is in fact based on the Bronze age Jesus of the Gnostics, rather than the Jewish one of Christian tradition?
[Sasquatch 1] Quote:/ Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome (c. 100),[32] Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[33] Justin Martyr,[34] and others. / These guys were around a century later. A hundred years is a long time, but they have said a few choice bits and some go into detail. Perhaps some of these ancient peeps did their homework back when the bread trail was still fresh. Or not as it's unsafe to assume anything, but it's another of those things which point at Jesus existing...
[Hermit 2] I see nothing here which speaks to an Historical Jesus. Only about the "Luminous Liars". Which is not the topic of discussion.
[Sasquatch 1] Quote: / Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[40] though a few have raised doubts.[41]
[Hermit 2] The "majority of scholars" on this topic are Christian apologists. What is more important is what academic historians accredited in 1st Century Judean History and the documents of the era make of it. And their opinion is to all intents and purposes unanimous. The first passage is a corrupted interpolation (a forgery), probably inserted after Origen's commentary in 240CE, (as otherwise he would have cited it). Refer to the full wikipedia article on this controversy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.
[Sasquatch 1] More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written: / About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[42] / A possible valid source, and one who was not Christian neither... I'd say so far he is probably the most impartial snippet I've included... That said, the article does go on to say that the original version may have been corrupted... *sighs*
[Hermit 2] The second passage you do not quote deals with the assassination of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" and while the "who was called Christ" is certainly not accepted as original by all scholars, again this is immaterial to sustaining your thesis of an historic Jesus of the babble. Indeed, if original, far from the gnostic protoJesus, this passage strongly supports Robert Eisenman's perspective on the perspective of the Jewish Jesus as a Zealot and the brother of James the Nasorean High Priest I have repeatedly referenced for you. And in case you wish to dispute the appropriateness of citing Robert Eisenman as an authority, from wikipedia, Robert H. Eisenman is an American archaeologist and Biblical scholar. He is currently Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach; and Visiting Senior Member of Linacre College, Oxford University. The consultant to the Huntington Library in its decision to free the Dead Sea scrolls, he was the leading figure in the worldwide campaign to gain access to the scrolls. A National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, he was a Senior Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. He is most famous for having completed a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in only 6 months, and for his radical re-interpretation of the early Christian community as one imitating the Nasoraeans, who still exist today as the priests (Nasuraiya)of the Mandaeans. His theory that John the Baptist (about whom Josephus writes a great deal, suggesting that to Jewish and Roman eyes, John the Baptist was a significant historical figure) did not recognize or authorize the mission of Jesus backs up the history of the Mandaeans.
[Sasquatch 1] Quote: / Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote: / Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50] / Another snippet, and also one which may or may not be accurate...
[Hermit 2] I regard this piece as much more likely to be authentic than your other citations. That said, do you consider Jesus of the babble a proponent of abominations, a most mischievous superstition, hideous and shameful? I would answer yes, but my opinion here is not relevant and my reasoning is undoubtedly different from yours. If you agree with this characterization, then you may assert that the passage supports the fact that there were Christians in Rome in the 1st Century, which is certainly not in dispute, and further that it is suggestive that Tacitus had been told that a Jewish Jesus had existed and perhaps was executed by the Romans, but it clearly does not support Jesus of the babble's existence based on any external source, neither does it support any of the babble's assertions about resurrection, miracles or character (whether you like the bigot of the babble or not), and so does not seem to support your thesis of an historical Jesus of the babble.
[Sasquatch 1] And there are more sources there too as well as a section closer to the end explaining exactly why some historians refuse to believe in Jesus' existence...
[Hermit 2] Indeed.
[Sasquatch 1] I guess all I'm trying to say, is that while there's nothing absolutely conclusive either way, there seems to be a lot of snippets from various sources, which leads me to reasonably believe Jesus did exist, regardless of the issue of whether or not he was in any way 'supernatural'.
[Hermit 2] If not supernatural, then whoever the Jesus you refer to here is, he clearly isn't the Jesus of the babble. Which destroys your thesis.
[Sasquatch 1] Full of holes perhaps, but then there's less to say Jesus never existed. And who, praytell, are all these historians who deny his existence? Because as far as I know, it's pretty much agreed by people that Jesus existed.
[Hermit 2] All else having failed, back to Argumentum ad Numerum? The duty is always on the asserter to sustain their claims.
[Sasquatch 1] Does anyone have a plethora of sources, as well as historians, to the contary?
[Hermit 2] A plethora of irrelevancies like yours? I could cite libraries' full but I prefer to stick to the subject. An historical prototype for Jesus not having been demonstrated by you, your thesis clearly must fail.
Minor editing 2007-11-13
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.45
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #2 on: 2007-11-13 17:29:37 » |
|
We really need a clapping smilie for posts like that last one.
-iolo
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #3 on: 2007-11-13 20:38:02 » |
|
Thank-you Iolo
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #4 on: 2007-11-14 15:21:00 » |
|
Quote from: Iolo Morganwg on 2007-11-13 17:29:37
We really need a clapping smilie for posts like that last one.
-iolo
|
Hear hear!
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #5 on: 2007-11-16 05:19:21 » |
|
I'm not terribly interested in this topic, however this little piece of investigation caught my eye:
Hermit sayeth
Quote:[Hermit 2] I see you that you are borrowing extensively from the forum at , http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=df91da92a61214fb9132665998df2bbd&t=57768 even though you are represented there (e.g. Sasquatch #8 ). For example, you have quoted "You're right, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't exist. It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?" [Jintatsu] and "Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy. Who knows? Maybe someday I'll join them. Until then, have a nice day.." [Behemoth] without bothering to reference them. I also see that somebody has elected to copy Blunderov [Cell #12] and my [Nin` #17] works wholesale, without attribution.
[Hermit 2] I'm unimpressed. This together with your inability to reply to direct questions earns you a rating of 2 from me. While your moving to a more appropriate board allowed you to avoid a 1 rating, I consider what you have been engaged in here to be sufficiently offensive to cross post this introduction to the original thread. |
This really gets me all warm feeling for the Church of Virus, because as a team we make great bullshit detectors, which is the prime reason I continue to hang around . . . I mean we are cool dudes too, but that's just a bonus.
Dear Sasquatch, Did you really think you were the first person to try this? Did you really think someone wouldn't call you on it? LoL!! Well, I dunno if you will stick around anylonger or whether you will run away with your tail between your legs, but one way or another as the smirking chimp says you misunderestimated us, and that makes me feel so much better about us! 
Don't worry, though, you are welcome to stick around and unlearn stupid human tricks like this, just don't become like Joe Dees, or you'll become REALLY irellevant.
P.S. Perhaps we can teach Futura to do this. At least she can fall back on the "I'm just a chatbot" excuse.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.38
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #6 on: 2007-11-16 07:21:45 » |
|
Yeah... it was pretty silly I guess, going around n' copying everyone. Although I don't know who Joe Dees is?
Eitherway I think I'll just stop and stay away from all this now. Nin and Cell were just accounts made by me to liven that place up a bit, as well as other names from there. But... yeah. I'll just keep to myself and be quiet now. I'm not very likely to be a valuable or benificial member here so, I guess there's not really much point in hangin' around. I apologize.
And so, I'll be off.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evidence for Jesus' existence at Hermits request.
« Reply #7 on: 2007-11-16 07:48:59 » |
|
You might be wondering, if "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," why am I annoyed?
Perhaps because, pace "Nin and Cell were just accounts made by me to liven that place up a bit," Nin' was registered at Final Fantasy just over a year ago, "Join Date: 09-10-2006" and has maintained an enviable posting record since then while Cell was registered nearly a year ago on 12-06-2006. I didn't bother to register to try to determine what, other than many of my taglines, has been copied or if the balance of the "editing" was as bad as what has happened on this thread. What has happened on this thread is quite bad enough.
Given that you are not taking Mo's advice to "unlearn stupid human tricks", Buh Bye.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
