And God Said "let there be arguments".

[goodlun]

May the Flying Spaghetti monster save me from fucking armchair wikischolars...

I'm trying to figure out who's the bigger idiot, Erezb, who's just plain ignorant, or Goodlun, who wants to seem like he knows something.

I have admitted to not knowing anything on several occasions, in fact I would have been easy to shut up had someone simply put forth the proof.
I keep looking for it and I can be looking in all the wrong places but you since everyone else seems to know for a fact that I am wrong everyone should be able to point to what proves that they are right.

[It is Fake]

First of I can't prove a negative, I also acknowledged that the lack of proof doesn't mean he their isn't a historical figure. What I want is to see the Historical method used to validate a Historical Jesus cause every time I dig into it ends right back up to Mark and sources that look like they are using Mark as their source.

Then you suck and historical Jesus, which you REFUSE to define, does exist. I'm pretty sure you mean MYTHICAL or LEGENDARY Jesus. People have tried to point this out to you, but you keep trudging ahead.

Mark is just not a great source if you go by the
Below Source Criticism guide lines taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Core principles

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
• A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

*YAWN* When yous top using wiki and wiki ripoffs maybe I'll help you more.

Yes I am aware of the Oral Tradition

I'm trying, but I'm edging towards treating you like Bodhi. Your awareness is ****. I'm talking about it existing alongside and affecting the written history you THINK you understand. The one you keep holding up saying "I SEE THIS THEREFORE IT IS TRUE.."

Once again something from the sect itself other then an Oral tradition would be nice, just a letter a journal entry something. I get that these things may have existed at one time and are most likely lost to time. I am not looking for news paper clippings here, A lot of history as divulged from very mundane correspondents. I have seen a letter from a roman soldier at Hastings wall asking his wife for socks.

So? This another logical fallacy.

I am not on some quest to disprove anything, I want to see the historical method used to generate this acceptance cause I am not seeing it.

DO you need me to show you how you constantly move the goal posts and use strawman arguments to continue this debate?

[DerAuslander]

I have admitted to not knowing anything on several occasions, in fact I would have been easy to shut up had someone simply put forth the proof.
I keep looking for it and I can be looking in all the wrong places but you since everyone else seems to know for a fact that I am wrong everyone should be able to point to what proves that they are right.

You're not looking for proof.

You're googling.

There's a difference.

[It is Fake]

I have admitted to not knowing anything on several occasions, in fact I would have been easy to shut up had someone simply put forth the proof.

Bullshit. People showed you the flaws, how to search, and what to do. You then started moving the goal posts as I said earlier. No, you are backpedaling and then being passive aggressive.

I keep looking for it and I can be looking in all the wrong places but you since everyone else seems to know for a fact that I am wrong everyone should be able to point to what proves that they are right.

See, here you go being a complete fucking dickhead. Who said you were wrong? I never said it. I said your research is ****, your logical fallacies are ****, your premiss is undefined **** and your reasoning is ****. Build a legit argument, not based on strawman arguments and people might help you.

When you act like an ass, like answering questions and situations you assumed are being implied, no one wants to help you.

[goodlun]

RAGE QUIT!
no not really. I am going to have to accept I simply do not know enough about this to continue. Thank you to all for your input on the subject.

[Vieux Normand]

I have an admission to make. I have re-read my most recent response to erezb and found it culturally wanting. Such insensitivity being out-of-line with such rarified company as Boffshido, I feel compelled to make amends.

I spoke, in the aforementioned misguided reply, of handing a rifle to each and every mid.-eastern hairy-monobrow in the hopes that they'd go at each other and rid us of the need to live with them any longer. This, of course, constitutes little more than something-for-nothing welfare. Nothing could be less compatible with the very part of the world which is widely thought to be the birthplace of free-market trading.

To make amends, I propose a trading scenario, a quid-pro-quo marketplace where something is given in exchange for something received.

What does the mid.-east have that is useful to the rest of the world? Oil.

Therefore, after all national arsenals have been equalized in order to make the starting-ground even, we should exchange arms for oil. Fix an exchange rate in which a given amount of oil is worth a certain number of firearms and ammunition.

The end result will be the same: howling abrahamic zealots will use their oil-bought arms to go after each other within the wall we've built to surround their wretched part of the world. The only difference is that those nations without oil to offer in exchange for arms will likely perish early on.

Oh well, the free-market dictates as it will. If some oil-bereft monobrows perish first, they need only blame their chosen omnipotent deity...who didn't judge them sufficiently worthy to have oil placed in their land.

There. A much more culturally-sensitive solution. I feel much better now.

[battlefields]

Vieux Normand for World President.

[Petter]

A writer who appears to have written intelligently on the subject is Richard Carrier; see e.g. his exchanges with Ehrman (lots of links there) and his book on Bayesian methods in historical research.

Personally I can't quite see why the question of whether there was a “historical Jesus” is supposed to be so damned important.

[slamdunc]

Vieux Normand for World President.

Is he French?

[It is Fake]

Personally I can't quite see why the question of whether there was a “historical Jesus” is supposed to be so damned important.

Personally, I can never understand why people feel it is "so damned important" to point out how "non-important" a subject is to them.

Especially, after posting and continuing the discussion.