So that's it for the election.

[Hasbinlulz]

ITT: Stephen Hawking is compared to "jesus scholars."

Laughing.

My.

Fucking.

Ass.

Off.

[Hailto]

I actually agree with hbb, what is the world coming to?

[Reiker000]

Can't wait for Obama to win I'm gonna be all like [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daldolma]

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

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

Sigh. The intent was to reference the "academic sense". I stated that I didn't need Wikipedia because the matter is common knowledge amongst those educated on the subject. I provided an excess of sources in order to establish the general consensus required. I exercised a bit of hyperbole, but having seen your post history, I don't think you can begrudge me a bit of that.

[Alawen]

I will no longer be quoting Dulldrama's long-winded fallacies.

Anyone who clicked through to the Bart Ehrman's post I linked from the Huffington Post would have noticed three things:

1) Ehrman gleefully threatens the careers of anyone who dares to raise the questions of mythicism,
2) Ehrman's writing, much like Daldolma's, is rife with logical fallacies and falsehoods, and
3) Ehrman is plugging his book confirming, yes, you guessed it, Jesus definitely for sure no doubt about it existed. This, despite the fact that Ehrman concedes that the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion.

Here is Richard Carrier shredding Ehrman: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism. Carrier's PhD in ancient history is from Columbia University. Ehrman responded to Carrier, then deleted his post.

Here is a link to one of Thomas L. Thompson's book on Amazon: The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. His PhD in Old Testament Studies is from Temple University. He was blacklisted in the United States for daring to write his dissertation on
"The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham." He moved to Denmark and taught at the University of Copenhagen. Investigation of evidence for biblical figures is taboo within American academia.

Robert Price, first inadvertently cited by Daldolma without actually reading, you know, what he was copying and pasting from Wikipedia, and then casually discredited, holds two PhDs from Drew University: one in theology and one in new Testament Studies. His most relevant work is probably Deconstructing Jesus.

The two factions in the debate over the historical existence of Christ have names. Dulldrama's position is firmly within the historicists. My position is with mythicists. There are many academics with impressive credentials on both sides of the dispute. Evidence boils down to the Bible, especially the writings of the theorized Biblical scribe labeled Q, the Testimonium Flavianum, the passing reference in Tacitus, and the lack of mention and missing books of the otherwise extremely thorough Philo. Everyone depends on copied and translated versions of these works BECAUSE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

Disagreement over the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been going on since the sixteenth century. The only copies of Antiquities of the Jews derive from Christian sources and the oldest manuscript dates from the eleventh century, a millenium after Jospehus wrote.

Contemporary versions of the Annals of Tacitus are based on what are called the Medicean manuscripts and they also date to the eleventh century. The authenticity of the Annals has been questioned by many great minds including Voltaire.

The Bible's revisions, insertions and interpolations are well-known and, for the sake of brevity, I will not even summarize them here.

My interest in this topic is not casual. I've read Carrier, Thompson and Price as well as Ehrman. The volume of material on the issue, despite the very real penalties academics face for daring to address historicity of any biblical figures, is daunting. The dispute is not new; it dates back to the Renaissance. No archaeological evidence exists to confirm the historicity of anything in the Bible. Yes, nothing. No tablets, no temple of Solomon, not even a potsherd that says Abraham.

Daldolma apparently first explored this topic two days ago with a 30-second glance at Wikipedia. He has, perhaps inadvertently, taken the stance of a Christian apologist, specifically a presuppositional apologetic. This is to say that no one who doesn't agree with his axioms is qualified to discuss the topic at hand. Despite his calls for reason, this is just a word for him. He is openly disdainful of my references to symbolic logic in analyzing arguments.

No, bro, I was not mad. Just thoroughly bored with your repeats of one-sided, out-of-context pull quotes from the first page of Google. If you want to discuss this with any credibility, you're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry. It's a very complex topic and you're stepping on your own dick when you infer that anyone can read original versions of writings that have not existed for centuries. You are a disaster of a thinker, apparently unable to analyze arguments, including your own. Your last post was over 500 words of ad hominem attack, which you conclude by begging me for more personal information to continue your nonsensical rant. For real?

tl;dr: Daldolma quotes from Wikipedia, gets mad, calls names.

[Alarti0001]

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

I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha!

this doesn't surprise me at all

[Alarti0001]

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

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

Come back when you learn how to use negative prefix modifiers

[Daldolma]

"You are a disaster of a thinker... ad hominem attack". Sweet intellectual consistency. At least you cut and ran from the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Anyway, like I said, I'm sick of the pseudo intellect. Your interest is irrelevant to me and your expertise in the subject is non-existent. You've painted the image of a two-sided and equally weighted debate even as you acknowledge that your viewpoint is taboo within American academia. Particularly interesting is the fact that three of the academics I cited as referencing an overwhelming consensus re: Jesus' existence hail from British academia. I guess it's an English language thing.

Still no credentials, still no reason to acknowledge your research as anything other than neckbeardery. And you still don't understand that EVEN ONE OF YOUR SOURCES -- Price -- has acknowledged that he is in the extreme minority and that the general consensus is that Jesus did live.

[Ravager]

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

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

An untestable hypothesis is a worthless one. I do question it, which is why I ask for facts, or a means to gather facts through testing. Closed-mindedness is the ignoring facts, not asking for them.

[Alawen]

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

(Repeats himself some more and doesn't respond to anything I wrote, but manages to deny the antecedent just to highlight his inability to form coherent arguments.)

Yes, yes, we all get it. Only the academics you agree with count. You read a couple paragraphs on Wikipedia and now you're an expert. No further effort is required on your part because you're a genius. You're the only one who gets to make conclusions about someone's intellect because yours is so astoundingly lofty.

I didn't "cut and run" from your accusation of argument from ignorance. I never claimed that Christ didn't exist. I claimed that there's no evidence for his existence. The fallacy doesn't apply. I suspect that distinction is lost on you.

What's YOUR PhD in, big boy? It had better be philosophy, or else your own standards exclude everything you've posted here.