Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: trippymonkey on June 23, 2017, 08:57:22 AM
-
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
-
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
Poor old Sass and A B.
ippy
-
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
That it's an article up to the Indy's usual standards on such topics.
First of all, as covered many times anyone who uses historical methods to make claims about a supernatural Jesus is either misunderstanding the methods or deliberately misusing them. In that some of what is hinted at in the article, is correct but it's not new.
And because they started off with that the article doesn't really define what an historical Jesus means which then leads to confusion in any statement that it makes. The paragraph at the end where it talks about the likelihood of some itinerant preacher is what is accepted by most historians. That it isn't certain us not news either. It isn't certain that Julius Caesar existed, though in terms of the historical method, vastly more likely than Jesus. It isn't certain that Socrates existed and he's certainly arguably less likely than Jesus.
It not surprisingly, given that it is essentially byte filler, doesn't look at the problems inherent in the mythicist position that for there to be no historical Jesus, it requires a group of disparate people to invent an entirely made up character with family theoretically still around to put forward a set of views in such a way that they thought this would be more effective than any other. It seems to represent a very modern sensibility based on modern approaches for which we have no other evidence.
If you ever get in to an argument with a convinced mythicist, I think you will find it very similar to arguing with a Biblical literalist, just through the mirror.
-
I am of the opinion a guy called Jesus probably existed, but what written about him by the gospel writers was highly exaggerated, or pure fantasy.
-
Good points all - Floo, thanks for that concise opinion.
N
-
I have read "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald and it makes an intersting read.
That the Gospels, the ones the Church allowed to be included (why were the others, known to exist or to have existed, were excluded is one of the many unanswered questions still, after God alone, if he exists, remembers how many years, awaiting a response from the Vatican) contradict each other in matters that are basic tenets of the religion, why there no longer exist any writings about Jesus written while he was, supposedly, alive.
The earliest being at least fifty years after his, supposed, crucifixtion and most that exist from that time writyten by Christians or their apologists.
At least Pagans are willing to own to their beliefs being FAITH not FACT!
-
Jesus has never been recognised as the promised 'Messiah' by most Jews, therefore he couldn't have done a very convincing job of presenting himself as such.
-
This is ancient stuff. The myther arguments have been around for some time, and as far as I can see, have been demolished. One of the best critics of it is Tim O'Neill:
http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/
-
Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.
It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.
-
Jesus has never been recognised as the promised 'Messiah' by most Jews, therefore he couldn't have done a very convincing job of presenting himself as such.
Mmm .... If we are using some form of anti ad populum, it would have to be accepted that in terms of followers Jesus, real or not, has been spectacularly successful.
-
Mmm .... If we are using some form of anti ad populum, it would have to be accepted that in terms of followers Jesus, real or not, has been spectacularly successful.
Islam has a many followers too, who truly believe Allah exists.
-
Islam has a many followers too, who truly believe Allah is exists.
And?
-
And?
Just because a religion has a lot of followers doesn't mean it has any more credence than any other belief system for which there is no evidence to support it.
-
Just because a religion has a lot of followers doesn't mean it has any more credence than any other belief system for which there is no evidence to support it.
And since I didn't say it did that is entirely irrelevant. You were the one taking the position that because if the lack of Jewish people thinking Jesus was Messiah was relevant to whether he was. You cannot use that and then avoid the overall success of Jesus, you are being illogical.
-
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
Of course Jesus existed , he's mentioned in the Bible ! ::) ::) ::)
-
Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?
-
Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?
'Oi, you! Random intern. Run me up a couple of hundred words on was Jesus real! And do it in 5 minutes!'
-
Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?
It is recycled every year somewhere in the press. They tend to avoid actual historical arguments like the plague, and make bizarre statements such as, why didn't Jesus write anything down, or where are the Roman records, and so on. History, it ain't, more like popular entertainment.
-
I was just thinking, the common confusion on this topic is between a historic figure, who was a Jewish preacher, and the divine personage, called Christ. Historians don't discuss the second issue, since they have no means of assessing the supernatural (does that sound familiar?), but do discuss the first. And I think most historians accept that a historic figure probably existed. The most obvious argument is on grounds of parsimony. See the article above by O'Neill. Also, the meagre historic evidence for historical Jesus is normal for ancient figures.
-
Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.
It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.
The two I mention Ad_O and Sassy fit my description!
I checked his, Fitzgerald's, biblical references and they appear to be correct.
You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.
-
Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.
It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.
As to
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
It could almost be Sassy, Hope, Ad_O or B A writing it. Predictable, defend the Bible and the biblical Christ at any cost just in case too many people believe these 'he's a myth' guys.
-
Trippy,
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
In a word: "meh".
Three issues:
First, I'm not sure I see the point of trying to argue an unknowable - ie, that an itinerant preacher/mystic/conjuror/moral philosopher (or an amalgam of several such) didn't exist. There seem be be enough scraps of evidence to suggest that a real person did exist, but it's a bit like saying "Saul the amphora maker on Cedar Avenue didn't exist" when we have pottery shards with "S" and "UL" on them. Sure, there may be other explanations but on balance there's no great significance in going with the direction of available records that Saul was indeed doing his stuff.
Second, as for the thoughts of Jesus (or the thoughts attributed to him), again does it matter whether he specifically said them any more than it matters whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays? What matters surely is that we have the ideas at all, to be considered and accepted or not as we wish. Whether the true author was in fact Reg the Reticent who decided that he'd attribute his thoughts to the street preacher on the corner who seemed to be working up a bit of a crowd for example seems to me to be fairly irrelevant.
Third though we have the claim of Jesus the man god. As NS has already said, the methods of academic history are naturalistic so using them to attempt to prove or disprove claims of the supernatural seems to me to be a fool's errand from the get-go. How anyone would go about demonstrating claims of the supernatural is a problem for the supernaturalist I'd have thought, but that's a different matter from arguing that Jesus didn't exist in the first place. Come to think of it, what would "exist" even mean in any case for a magic man who we are told could be dead for a bit then alive again?
-
Trippy,
In a word: "meh".
Three issues:
First, I'm not sure I see the point of trying to argue an unknowable - ie, that an itinerant preacher/mystic/conjuror/moral philosopher (or an amalgam of several such) didn't exist. There seem be be enough scraps of evidence to suggest that a real person did exist, but it's a bit like saying "Saul the amphora maker on Cedar Avenue didn't exist" when we have pottery shards with "S" and "UL" on them. Sure, there may be other explanations but on balance there's no great significance in going with the balance of available records that Saul was indeed doing his stuff.
Second, as for the thoughts of Jesus (or the thoughts attributed to him), again does it matter whether he specifically said them any more than it matters whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays? What matters surely is we have the ideas at all, to be considered and accepted or not as we wish. Whether the true author was in fact Reg the Reticent who decided that he'd attribute his thoughts to the street preacher on the corner who seemed to be working up a bit of a crowd for example seems to me to be fairly irrelevant.
Third though we have claim of Jesus the man god. As NS has already said, the methods of academic history are naturalistic so using them to attempt to prove or disprove claims of the supernatural seems to me to be a fool's errand from the get-go. How anyone would go about demonstrating claims of the supernatural is a problem for the supernaturalist I'd have though, but that's a different matter from arguing that Jesus didn't exist in the first place. Come to think of it, what would "exists" even mean in any case for a magic man who we are told could be dead for a bit then alive again?
I liked this post.
-
Vlad,
I liked this post.
Bloody hell - have the clocks struck thirteen? ;)
-
The two I mention Ad_O and Sassy fit my description!
I checked his, Fitzgerald's, biblical references and they appear to be correct.
You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.
I have no idea where you think I argued that all of Christian beliefs are facts in the post you were replying to. As to the existence of a preacher called Jesus,various points have been made in the thread about why it is the most reasonable, parsimonious and generally accepted historical conclusion. When you want to argue with them, rather than simply say you don't accept any, get back to me.
-
Owls,
You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact...
Surely "Christianity" - ie, the religion and it's associated practices – is a fact isn't it? Sure it's claims of the supernatural doings of a "God" are articles of faith, albeit that some Christians seem determined to assert them into investigable facts (generally by relying on very bad arguments) but the religion itself clearly exists.
...and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.
Christ the man god, or Jesus the man? For the former, that seems pretty likely yes; for the latter though an itinerant street preacher whose story caught the wind doesn't seem particularly far-fetched as a factual explanation to me.
PS I know all about paganism by the way. You twitch you nose and magic stuff happens right?
Oh hang on... that was "Bewitched".
Sorry ;)
-
Owls,
Surely "Christianity" - ie, the religion and it's associated practices – is a fact isn't it? Sure it's claims of the supernatural doings of a "God" are articles of faith, albeit that some Christians seem determined to assert them into investigable facts (generally by relying on very bad arguments) but the religion itself clearly exists.
Christ the man god, or Jesus the man? For the former, that seems pretty likely yes; for the latter though an itinerant street preacher whose story caught the wind doesn't seem particularly far-fetched as a factual explanation to me.
Worse surely for the mythicists position is that that seems incredibly unlikely. Who is going to day in 1st century CE, 'Let's invent a preacher with family that we claim are still living, instead of talking about an actual existing preacher who we think did exist'?
To be fair to Owlswing I think that he meant that Christian beliefs taken to be facts not doubting the existence of the religion.
-
Moderator A number of off topic posts have been removed, new topics have been set up for some posts , links below. Please stay on topic with the OP.
Pagan beliefs
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14110.0
Embarrassing your children
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14111.0
-
Sorry.
-
Rhi,
Sorry.
Off topic ;)
-
Rhi,
Off topic ;)
Oh lord. Sorry. :-[
-
Rhi,
Oh lord. Sorry. :-[
Oh for...now poor NS is going to have to start a new thread on apologies. Give the guy a break willya!
For what it's worth, I quite like the odd bits of chat, jokes etc that pepper discussions from time-to-time - it makes the place a bit jollier. Buy hey, that's why I'm not a Mod I guess.
Jesus.
(See what I did there? ;) )
-
Yeah, meandering chat is like that thing, what's it called, real life, that's it.
This is a good game though. :)
-
Rhi,
Yeah, meandering chat is like that thing, what's it called, real life, that's it.
This is a good game though. :)
Ooh, don't let Nearly catch you doing it though will you. He'll be chewing the rug in incandescent rage I expect even as we speak...
Christianity.
-
Yes, that's why I said, Oh lord. That's on topic, right?
-
Rhi,
Yes, that's why I said, Oh lord. That's on topic, right?
I missed that - very clever :)
-
Before I get into this debate, I should say that my opinion is that Christianity had a founder who lived in the early 1st century and the Jesus character talked about in the Bible is an extrapolation of that founder. I don't know where the boundary between truth and myth lies although obviously, as a person who attempts to be rational, I reject the supernatural magic crap.
Worse surely for the mythicists position is that that seems incredibly unlikely. Who is going to day in 1st century CE, 'Let's invent a preacher with family that we claim are still living, instead of talking about an actual existing preacher who we think did exist'?
Unfortunately, your logic doesn't work - it's backwards. It works if Jesus actually did exist i.e. they had a choice of using historical Jesus or making somebody up, but if he didn't exist, they would obviously have had to make somebody up.
-
I suspect the real Jesus wouldn't recognise the Biblical Jesus and all that was claimed for him.
-
The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''
-
The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''
One of the best worst manglings of methodological naturalism I've seen, I have to say.
-
The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''
Stop lying.
-
Historical method is naturalistic for one simple reason - that there is no method of assessing the supernatural. It is quite noticeable that historians are prepared to discuss the bare bones of the life of Jesus, but not the resurrection nor other miracles.
But I think the mythers have gone to the opposite extreme, and suggest that it's all legendary. Well, it might be, but a historic figure who is a Jewish preacher, sans miracles, is a parsimonious explanation. Also, some of the mythicist explanations are really florid.
-
Historical method is naturalistic for one simple reason - that there is no method of assessing the supernatural. It is quite noticeable that historians are prepared to discuss the bare bones of the life of Jesus, but not the resurrection nor other miracles.
But I think the mythers have gone to the opposite extreme, and suggest that it's all legendary. Well, it might be, but a historic figure who is a Jewish preacher, sans miracles, is a parsimonious explanation. Also, some of the mythicist explanations are really florid.
I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.
At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.
That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.
-
I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.
At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.
That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.
Stop lying
-
I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.
On a 1-10 scale of wrongness I'm recording an 11 here.
At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.
Exactly - they're not history.
That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.
And still, as it happens, correct.
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.
At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.
That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.
No it isn't. It's just an explanation of what academic history actually entails, which is why it's indifferent to claims of resurrections and the like.
If you think "God or miracles" are real nonetheless then it's for you to find a method to demonstrate these claims...
...which is the point at which you always either:
A. Deploy a logical fallacy; or
B. Disappear.
-
On a 1-10 scale of wrongness I'm recording an 11 here.
Exactly - they're not history.
And still, as it happens, correct.
I think you have to be careful here because Vlad uses history in 2 senses here interchangeably to lie about what people are saying. The first is that history is simply all that has happened. That could be all caused by magic or not but if JC could do magic stuff with bread, then whatever he did was bread magic.
That it has been pointed out that the study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and which he appears to accept, then allows him to use people talking about the limits of history, when they are talking about the method of studying history, to misrepresent them as if they are using history in the first sense.
Note despite this having been pointed out multiple times, he continues to lie about it.
-
NS,
I think you have to be careful here because Vlad uses history in 2 senses here interchangeably to lie about what people are saying. The first is that history is simply all that has happened. That could be all caused by magic or not but if JC could do magic stuff with bread, then whatever he did was bread magic.
That it has been pointed out that the study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and which he appears to accept, then allows him to use people talking about the limits of history, when they are talking about the method of studying history, to misrepresent them as if they are using history in the first sense.
Note despite this having been pointed out multiple times, he continues to lie about it.
Quite. Perhaps Jakswan should write a little algorithm that replies "Stop lying" whenever Vlad posts something, thereby saving the rest of us the trouble.
His other tactic by the way when his attempts at reasoning are falsified is to claim that it's all a big "antitheist" conspiracy in any case.
-
Vlad,
No it isn't. It's just an explanation of what academic history actually entails, which is why it's indifferent to claims of resurrections and the like.
I believe Nero was supposed to have said shortly before his death "I feel myself becoming a god". No doubt the historical method would be able to determine the likelihood of his having said that. I suspect it might have problems in determining whether he actually became a god.
-
I believe Nero was supposed to have said shortly before his death "I feel myself becoming a god". No doubt the historical method would be able to determine the likelihood of his having said that. I suspect it might have problems in determining whether he actually became a god.
off top of head, isn't that Vespasian?
-
off top of head, isn't that Vespasian?
Probably was. Didn't get my historical method working properly!
-
Probably was. Didn't get my historical method working properly!
Vespasian is the great undramatised emperor.
-
Vlad,
No it isn't. It's just an explanation of what academic history actually entails, which is why it's indifferent to claims of resurrections and the like.
If you think "God or miracles" are real nonetheless then it's for you to find a method to demonstrate these claims...
...which is the point at which you always either:
A. Deploy a logical fallacy; or
B. Disappear.
I never disappear but am always here for you guys. Like Nana in Peter Pan Ha Ha Ha.
-
Fallacy Boy,
I never disappear but am always here for you guys. Like Nana in Peter Pan Ha Ha Ha.
Wrong fictional boy - try Pinocchio.
-
Fallacy Boy,
Wrong fictional boy - try Pinocchio.
Nana was the dog. And Nana was a she.
-
Jeremy,
Yes I know, but Peter Pan was neither.
-
Poor old Sass and A B.
Why should this have any affect on their faith?
They can start worrying if anything in that article constitutes proof.
Until then ...
-
Why should this have any affect on their faith?
They can start worrying if anything in that article constitutes proof.
Until then ...
And have you any proof even if a guy called Jesus existed, what was claimed about him had any basis in fact?
-
Why should this have any affect on their faith?
Nothing has any effect [sic] on those who have abandoned or never even adopted rational thought. As someone once so rightly said, trying to argue rationally with someone who has renounced reason is like giving medicine to a corpse.
They can start worrying if anything in that article constitutes proof.
Until then ...
Until then the irrational hug their irrationalities.
-
I have read "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald and it makes an intersting read.
That the Gospels, the ones the Church allowed to be included (why were the others, known to exist or to have existed, were excluded is one of the many unanswered questions still, after God alone, if he exists, remembers how many years, awaiting a response from the Vatican) contradict each other in matters that are basic tenets of the religion, why there no longer exist any writings about Jesus written while he was, supposedly, alive.
The earliest being at least fifty years after his, supposed, crucifixtion and most that exist from that time writyten by Christians or their apologists.
At least Pagans are willing to own to their beliefs being FAITH not FACT!
Sorry boys and girls, I missed this one.
Jesus is mentioned on four occasions within the Jewish writings known as The Mishnah, as verified by Rabbi Morris Goldstein, who as you may have guessed, is not a Christian. The Mishnah refers to Jesus as being a sorceror, and his disciples as criminals.
As for the Vatican, the canon of the New Testament was settled in the fourth century. And what is this obsession you have with the RC, when it is the Orthodox Church who is the real McCoy?
-
what is this obsession you have with the RC, when it is the Orthodox Church who is the real McCoy?
According to - funnily enough - the Orthodox Church. MRDA ::)
-
Sorry boys and girls, I missed this one.
Jesus is mentioned on four occasions within the Jewish writings known as The Mishnah, as verified by Rabbi Morris Goldstein, who as you may have guessed, is not a Christian. The Mishnah refers to Jesus as being a sorceror, and his disciples as criminals.
As for the Vatican, the canon of the New Testament was settled in the fourth century. And what is this obsession you have with the RC, when it is the Orthodox Church who is the real McCoy?
No religion is the real McCoy, it is all created by humans, imo.
-
Sorry boys and girls, I missed this one.
Jesus is mentioned on four occasions within the Jewish writings known as The Mishnah, as verified by Rabbi Morris Goldstein, who as you may have guessed, is not a Christian. The Mishnah refers to Jesus as being a sorceror, and his disciples as criminals.
Not everyone agrees with that view though do they?
-
Sorry boys and girls, I missed this one.
Jesus is mentioned on four occasions within the Jewish writings known as The Mishnah, as verified by Rabbi Morris Goldstein, who as you may have guessed, is not a Christian. The Mishnah refers to Jesus as being a sorceror, and his disciples as criminals.
And the said disciples have different names from those of the biblical Jesus.
-
Why should this have any affect on their faith?
They can start worrying if anything in that article constitutes proof.
Until then ...
Hi there SOTS, I was more commenting on the sad state of two individuals unable to unfuddle their minds from such a load of ancient ignorant, man made, nonsense, well at least that's where the evidence is pointing.
Ah well back to the old Tarot cards.
ippy
-
Hi there SOTS, I was more commenting on the sad state of two individuals unable to unfuddle their minds from such a load of ancient ignorant, man made, nonsense, well at least that's where the evidence is pointing.
Ah well back to the old Tarot cards.
ippy
Ah, Tarot - a good old non-religious past-time to unravel the past, the future and the present.
-
Ah, Tarot - a good old non-religious past-time to unravel the past, the future and the present.
Secular sorcery?...........Over to you Ippington.
-
Ah, Tarot - a good old non-religious past-time to unravel the past, the future and the present.
I knew you would be writing this post Owl.
ippy
-
I knew you would be writing this post Owl.
ippy
LOL!
-
Secular sorcery?...........Over to you Ippington.
Please post YOUR definition of this term please
Moderator: content removed
-
Please post YOUR definition of this term please, Moderator: quoted content removed.
I have no idea where you've read or heard this, 'Secularist sorcery', term nothing to do with anything I've written or said?
Perhaps it was at a meeting of secularists where the tea was served up so hot,__________________
ippy
Moderator : I think Owl may have confused me with someone else and as for the name calling, water off a ducks back, I don't think there's any name calling that is possible to post on the forum that would bother me.
-
I have no idea where you've read or heard this, 'Secularist sorcery', term nothing to do with anything I've written or said?
Perhaps it was at a meeting of secularists where the tea was served up so hot,__________________
ippy
Moderator : I think Owl may have confused me with someone else and as for the name calling, water off a ducks back, I don't think there's any name calling that is possible to post on the forum that would bother me.
Oh dear!
Actually Ippy, the Moderator got it about as arse-about-face as it is possible to get!
I was, most definitely and positively, NOT referring to you.
-
Oh dear!
Actually Ippy, the Moderator got it about as arse-about-face as it is possible to get!
I was, most definitely and positively, NOT referring to you.
Further to the above, I have mixed up two posts - what did I say about Vlad that pissed him or the Mods off? I truly cannot remember - if the answer will get you Modded please use PM!
-
Oh dear!
Actually Ippy, the Moderator got it about as arse-about-face as it is possible to get!
I was, most definitely and positively, NOT referring to you.
The moderator didn't say you were referring to ippy. That was ipoy's error.
-
And the said disciples have different names from those of the biblical Jesus.
Correct.
-
Oh dear!
Actually Ippy, the Moderator got it about as arse-about-face as it is possible to get!
I was, most definitely and positively, NOT referring to you.
That's fine by me and it wouldn't have mattered to me either way.
No probs ippy
-
See what you all feel about this then ...
https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396
A few idiots are questioning...true historians, good ones, that is, don't question his existence.