"Your attempts at personal attacks are lame. Lame because personal attacks can be well done, but yours are simply weak. Next, the Talmud is not scripture. Though it is considered very important to the Jews and considered a very accurate history and whatnot, it is not considered to be canonical at the same level as the Torah. Second, Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud. Now, it definitely does not support Him as a teacher and bashes him, but it is there."
aye aye ayeeeee. have you READ his bashing in the talmud. is he SINGLED OUT as a SPECIAL messiah, worthy of more bashing than any other "false prophet"???? enlighten me, how specifically does the talmud refer to jesus's character? what name does it use for jesus? how many others does it use similar names for??
also, can you verify that those parts of the talmud were written at the exact time that yeshua was supposed to walk the earth preaching? do you even know how fragmented the talmud is? i shall elaborate with an example. dante described muhammad{the muslim prophet} to be in one of the hells in his poem the inferno for being a false prophet. should i take that as evidence for the existance of muhammad????
neither the torah nor the talmud have the historical authenticity you attribute to them. consistantly their accounts of history have been proven inaccurate/forgeries/wrong. i understand that due to your belief and the scritures supporting your belief in your mind, you consider them canonical, but that is due to faith. there is a reason most historians do not refer to the bible and the torah/old testament, to study history. it is because time and again, both have been proven WRONG. and it would be much appreciated if you didnt toss around your beliefs as facts. despite what you might think, i have nothing personal against you. its just your unchecked self confidence and feeling of superioty that takes your arguments into disconneced obscurities.
{btw, it is a little ironic that your accusing another of personal attacks when your own posts are rife with constant reminders of your superiority complex. }
"Also, the Roman records are very secular and written well before Constantine. It is not biased and secular archeology agrees. The criterion of embarrassment trumps the idea that they are biased views. And the Jews rarely deny the existence of Jesus. That is a very outspoken minority, not the majority. They do not him as a prophet, but they rarely hold that he never existed."
the roman records are as secular{in perspective to christianity} as christian crusade records are secular in perspective to muslim history. the jews OFTEN deny his existance, its just that that sort of thing isnt hyped on the news due to the need of israel to be fiendly with its catholic/protestant neighbours and america in its current time of war against palestine. go to jerusalem and ask a whole buncha peole. i think over 90% will deny the existance of jesus.
"Still off-topic eh? That's nice. Second, your use of the English has been laughable since your arrival and I'm sure that any attempt you make at discussing linguistics and semantics will continue the joke and bastardization of the language."
lol, i think in the beginning of your posts you were saying sumthing about personal attacks 🙄 . tell me, is it insecurity or elation that makes you spew out such illogical/deluded/self satisfying junk because i really am at loss to figuring that one out.
"Next, we have a high amount of records of Jesus for someone living at that time. For Jesus starting starting out so small He has much written about Him. You asking for the Messiah being mentioned as Jesus Christ is best supported by the mentioning of Christians and the existence of Christus whom they worshiped. That makes it very clear that it is a reference to Jesus."
is thatt why his birthdate is unknow? is that why there are no records of his father?{SURELY an infant claimed to be born without a father would be the staging point onf much interest at a time of mysticism. yet there are no records of his early life before preaching, get what im saying here?}. and re read your posted paragraph. where is the backing of the rather vague and extrapulant claim? ang again, isnt this all from selected christian literature or non christian literature endorsed by the church? truly unbiased 😂 . honestly, im not the one drawing bizzarely accurate{and predictable} conclusions from hazy unrelated segmented evidence here.
"Most of your next points are truly non-points. Jesus's birth name was Hebrew, but that is of little importance to anything we are discussing. Second, not only is there little evidence for Jesus's birthday in non-Christian records, but there is also none in Christian records other than the general time period. Since the census is a well documented event it is not hard to figure it out."
and what is your implication here? jesus's true name{which we do not know} is present in an official census{that no1 authentic endorses}, and can be taken as evidence for his existance???? lol. cmon, just in the beginning there you were saying sumthing about "non-points". 😎
"The evidence for Jesus's existence has not been countered and attempts at it are rather laughable. Now I will speculate that you got no response because your argument is lacking in support other than rambling rhetoric, your atrocious grammar, punctuation and spelling, coupled with Feceman getting tired of these ridiculous recycled arguments that float around as certain people feel better with the delusion that Jesus was not a historical person. Next, the greater portion of the non-Christian part of this forum does not agree with you. Most agree that Jesus was a historical person, they simply deny His divinity. Shaky, debbiejo, Kali, Alliance, etc. all seem to agree that He was real."
when a person states in the opening sentence that "attempts at it are rather laughable" you "know" its his faith speaking as no logical person would claim such a thing even about an accepted theory. let alone shaky hypothesis which you are trying to defend. and apparently you werent reading, or {DARE one presume for such an educated man as yourself} do not understand the rules of english language {which discussion with me, would lead to the BASTARDISATION of the language} as any person who can keep a coeherent trail of thought and understands linguistics and semanticity, would be able to tell that practically ever reply ive given was a RESPONSE.
and just to recap, i didnt say he did not exist per se{that was you, who started the discussion} i said the historical "CHARACTER" of jesus "probably" never existed. and then you went on to say that "A" possible jesus always existed toi which there is still a lot of doubt.
and theres that thing with insults again. your messages always seem to be 2 part insult mixed with one part of unsupported claims. and additional .5 part of insult to ice the paragraph at the end. really what is it that you hop to achive with this.
and then you go on to critique my SARCASM as a reply to those insults. very "christian" of you 🙂 . and please use common sense. i wanst referring to the non christian denying his existance. i was referring to the fact that they disagree with you on practically every{or most either way} topics you post, or post in. it was merely pun at you INFALLIABILITY. oh yea, your misunderstanding is probablythe fault of my "atrocius grammer" as opposed to your lack of imagination isnt it 🙄 .
"I have never held that everyone here is an idiot. I believe there are several intelligent, critically thinking non-Christians and Christians here. I simply do not believe you fall in that category. I am quite fallible, but you are moreso which is why I laugh at nearly all your arguments."
whose being an apologetic now. you have called people idiots/idiotic in the past. more than once. now, merely to single me out{at this place and point of time}, your trying to sound open minded and reasonable. ohhh nice devious tactic. i LIKE IT 😈 . and well on thing is true in that post, you laugh at all mu arguments, on the other hand, many of the people you mentioned dont laugh at most{if any} of my arguemnts. quite the contrary. now is that discrepent with your claim or WHAT? 😄
"Your dislike for religion is basically ignorance as far as psychology is concerned. Psychology sees many advantages to religion and has supported it with studies. Psychology and psychiatry do not consider religion to be pathological in anyway. If there is a false belief it is likely not due to illness and, therefore, not pathological. Therefore, you should stick to terms that you understand fully and actually apply to the situation."
yes yes yes. the only reason psychology doesnt consider abrahamic relegions ad pathologicla is because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD HAS THEM! if you categorise it like that the greater majority of people would be mentally sick. this has always been debated bu agnostic/atheistic philosophers/psychologists. and the consensus seems to be that it is an evil which must continue as theres no way to rid man of it. in the same perspective much of the philosophy and mindset of the third reich/aryan brotherhood/KKK was also not considered pathological.
but is that evidence for its NORMALCY???????? 🙁 . on the other hand satanic rituals and many fetishes ARE considered pathological. simply because they are vastly different form the NORM. it has more to do with deviance than biological abnormalcy{WHICH is what pathology SHOULD be about}. you know im starting to think post buy post, that your not at ALL aware with the subjct of psychology, even though i never claimed to be an expert.