@tektontv “Referring you to the author of the chapter for questions to or objections about the chapter is "dodging"?” Yes it is dodging since obviously you don’t have valid arguments, and have no other recourse but to refer me to the author for questions. You keep on failing to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you not somebody else making the positive claim of Origen’s knowledge of the TF, unless of course you withdraw or change your statement.
@AgrippaTheMighty I guess any excuse will do for you when you're in a corner. Not that it matters -- Price deals with your silly points elsewhere in the chapter. Too bad you're out of freebies. Ciao.
@tektontv “In seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.” The original James passage found in Antiquities of The Jews has no such mention as admitted in the same pg 23, and deals not principally with the death of James, but with Ananus being removed from the high priesthood, for exceeding his authorities by killing James and some others, and of Jesus, the son of Damneus, appointment as new high priest.
@tektontv As we know, Origen acknowledges that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was the Christ. On pg 24, the author wishfully suggests though once again admitting of the lack of a mention in Antiquities that Josephus, a Pharisee Jew, blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James. On pg 25, we read Whealey’s suggestion of both the execution of Jesus and James as “proof”, but there is no evidence that Origen quotes or knows about Antiquities 18.
@tektontv In the last paragraph on pg 25 we read, “A strong majority of scholars…have concluded that much of the TF is authentic.” Besides being an appeal to authority and to the majority, this is debatable. But the point is that N.T. scholars are not scientists and some historians still view that the key to their work is the power of the imagination, and therefore contend that history should be understood as an art.
@tektontv “Price deals with your silly points elsewhere in the chapter” or so you claim. But since you are not able or willing to defend the pages in your book that purportedly maintain Origen’s knowledge of the TF, I have addressed the “connection” between Origen and the TF, and will declare it as speculative, useless and devoid of valid evidence. Adieu.
If followers of Jesus and JP Holding representatives like bully & name caller Dante666 is the best that Christianity has to offer, I much rather roast in hell for eternity where more intelligent and interesting people will be found.
@tecktontv- When you spend quite a bit of time name calling, and you are suppose to be a man of G-d, it diminishes you. How does Susan put up with you? LOL
That's just a typo Dante. Wyatt's actually quite an intelligent guy usually and he is very knowledgable about Judaism. He has got it into his head though that J.P is a bad guy.
He basically believes that Christians have painted Jesus into the Torah when he obviously isn't there. He thinks Christians are somewhat arrogant for telling Jews how to interpret their own scriptures. It's an understandable position, but I am hoping that the heat can be taken out of the dialogue.
It's understandable. We tend to object when Mormons or Muslims use bad argumentation when interpreting our scriptures. Wyatt and the rabbis he looks to also knows Biblical Hebrew, while most of us Christians do not. So I can see where he is coming from. Of course, I am not willing to concede that non-Jewish scholars cannot come to a right understanding:).
@Dante666 I call it factual. It clearly states the criteria for the Messiah. He was to be an obervant Jew from the House of David. If his father was G-d he was not from the house of David although xtians get around this by saying this passage is really talking about Joseph. He is to be an ordinary human, not a part of a Trinity (which is having your cake and eating it too). He is to bring peace to the world (nothing is said about a part 2) and gather all the Jews back to Israel
@DarkQuietWyattON Ever thought about the matriarchial lineage? Why couldn't the Messiah be both human and part of the Trinity? Are you saying that God can't have His cake and eat it too? And indeed, we have peace, for we have entered into God's rest, i.e., no more works for salvation.
@Dante666 Oh gosh no....golly I would never have thought about matriarchial lineage ROFL. The Torah clearly states in (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) this lineage is to be on the father's side. The Messiah is human, a king. If he were a diety, that would have been stated. You obviously do not read Hebrew. As for peace, it is to be world peace. I think last time I checked the USA was in two wars. Not a good sign of peace now is it?
@DarkQuietWyattON Now how about we go all the way back to Genesis 3:15? Whose offspring will crush the serpent's head? Adam's? Or the woman (Eve's)? Those passages you cited do speak of a male ancestor, but the fact remains that even to this day rabbinical law recognizes only matriarchal lineage. If he were merely human then what did David say in Psalm 110:1? And where did the Torah talk about world peace?
@Dante666 Oh my goodness....how great of you to tell me that what Rabbinical law says...I had no idea because my time in the Yeshiva meant nothing. Rabbinical law recognizes the mother as the person that makes a Jew, a Jew. Yes however kingship is passed from the father. The Cohanim and Levin line are patrilineally handed down. Wow...that Yeshiva education was good for something after all
@Dante666 -Cont--He is to rebuild the Temple which was not even destroyed in his lifetime and unite all of humanity in Torah and the worship of G-d. Now a book that tells you specifically what foods to eat, what to wear etc, is not going to tell you that "Oh by the way, I am going to have a trinity being come down to earth but the prophesy will be fulfilled later...during a rerun kind of thing". I mean, it makes to sense. Xtians like to tell us (the Jews) that Isaiah is talking about jesus...
@DarkQuietWyattON The temple, as has already been explained clearly in the New Testament, referred to the body of Jesus, not the temple of Jerusalem. Ever heard of Wisdom literature? Well, since you're a Jew who claims to have studied the Torah, you obviously should have, but you are not showing any understanding of it.
@Dante666 Sure and I also know that the Torah says the Temple...the actual building not jesus but then to say that it is meaning jesus would be you arrogant xtians writing jesus into the Torah, which is my original point with you I believe and you just confirmed you did that but I don't think you realize you do or else your arrogance is greater than what you see as my own
@DarkQuietWyattON The Torah says the Temple, huh? Jesus said the same thing. Claiming that we Christians "wrote" Jesus into the Torah with no real justification, isn't that...arrogant? Saying that it's impossible for God to choose to reveal Himself and fulfill the Torah in this manner if He could choose, isn't that...arrogant? But of course, I'm sure it would not be too arrogant for a mere Yeshiva student to say what God can or cannot do.
@Dante666 Cont-but don't you think as we Jews were the first ones that had the Torah AND can read it in its orginal AND have the oral tradition that we probably know what it says without a group coming along a thousand years later and telling us we got it wrong?? The "NT" was not even written until years after jesus died and there are MANY different versions of the xtian bible. There is but 1 Torah.
@DarkQuietWyattON You think the authors of the New Testament weren't Jews? So what if the NT wasn't written until years after Jesus died? At least they were written by reliable eyewitnesses, and your idea of there being many different versions of the Christian Bible is most likely wrong.
@Dante666 -Most likely?! Are you serious?! KJ, NKJV (I guess changes made it new), NTL, NASB, NJB, AB, CEV...the list goes on and those are just the ones in English and I believe just the protestant ones.
Yes, they were Jews. So what? If I convert does it make a difference I am Jewish? So if the testaments were written around 70 CE, then the writers would have had to have been in their 80's to have known Jesus AND they gospels seem to contradict each other
@DarkQuietWyattON Yes, I'm serious, and you're obviously wrong then. These are merely translations. They're not different Bibles by virtue of content. They are all continuously updated in their translation. Do you think there is a single perfect English translation of the Tanakh? No! Does that mean there are different versions of the Tanakh? No!
No, the writers would have only been around the age of 50-60 in 70 AD. The Gospels do not contradict each other.
@Dante666 Hence my point. Different translations give rise to different interpretations. We read the Tanakh in Hebrew and not one letter has changed since it began. Debating you is like debating a brick wall. I can translate what you just wrote into Hebrew but that does not mean I am translating it the proper way you intended. (Shakes head). WOW. Talk about ignorance
@DarkQuietWyattON And yet still many different interpretations can be arrived at from reading the same Tanakh. Furthermore, are you aware of our use of concordances?
@Dante666 We really have only 3 interpreations, Reform, Orthodox and Conservative. There are over 38,000 xtian denominations...each tweaking the bible as they wish. Yes I am aware of your concordances. Are you aware we learn the Torah in its orignal language and so don't have to look anything up any words? Are you aware we have the oral tradition that has been handed down since Moses that also tells us how to interpret the Torah? Reformers and Conservs want the easy route is all
@DarkQuietWyattON Again, with the 38,000 denomination argument? Do you even know why are there so many denominations? Let me put it this way: the Methodist Church in Thailand, one denomination; the Methodist Church in India, another denomination, etc. Do they both have any theological differences? Nope. Not a single bit. Do the theological differences between the Protestant groups matter? Nope. Not a single bit. Do you also read the rest of the Tanakh? Nope. Apparently not.
@Dante666 I am blind and my aide was typing on a an iPad which has a small keyboard. I am sorry if the typo's offended your intellectual sensibilities and as for having nothing, please see my responses to you. If you should need more examples, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige you in your great quest for knowledge
@DarkQuietWyattON Make no mistake, I will not restrain myself from lashing out at you simply because you are blind, because despite your blindness you are so full of this arrogance and ignorance and hypocrisy. At the least I will not call you out on typos, but I will still berate you for arrogant and ignorant arguments.
@Dante666 ROFL....wow. Calling me arrogant and ignorant. Shall I cry now or later? Your hypocrisy and arrogance are also looming large and seems unchecked at this point.
@Dante666 Telling me I am arrogant (which you are not doubt correct) while failing to see this in yourself. I mean, if I have to point out your hypocrisy, you won't believe me anyway. ROFL. I am beginning to see that being called arrogant and ignorant by you was kind of an honor...ROFL. OMG this was great fun. Nothing like debating some guy from Malaysia about the Torah. This was a first ROFL
@DarkQuietWyattON Oh, and how am I arrogant? By dismissing your arrogant claims of passing the Yeshiva? I had to point out your hypocrisy earlier. Indeed, some guy from Malaysia is probably not as ignorant as you are.
@DarkQuietWyattON Chances are you'd fail any test given at any serious theological school. Until you show some signs of scholarship, as opposed to merely boasting and clipping sound bites, you're the one in need of proving yourself. Do any scholars reference YOU in their works? Are you cited as an authority in any books? Do you write for major magazines? No, you don't. But for me the answer to all three is "yes"...so your claim to have "stodied" is without substance.
@tektontv Nope. I studied in Yeshiva and didn't fail? How are you on YOUR Jewish education. Once again, your narcissism betrays you and I keep telling people this but they don't seem to see it. You have quite the little cult following but then so does Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. You publish your own books. Your friends on You Tube reference you or am I mistaken and people like Kent Hovind, Mike Huckabee (yes he is also a preacher), John Williams or the Pope reference you?.......
@DarkQuietWyattON Not failing Yeshiva means nothing. How ironic, that you are complaining about others' narcissism. And hypocritical. Why would you expect people like Hovind or Huckabee or even the Pope to reference Holding? But of course, Holding has been referenced by others before. You need to widen your reading, kid.
@Dante666 A Yeshiva means nothing? Hmm..It is the study of the Torah which you call "Old Testament". I guess that is nothing. I said I didn't fail. I didn't say I was head of the class or published etc. Holding/Turkel is 43 years old. He is twice as old as I am.
So ok, what illustrious scholars have cited this former prison librarian turned online cult leader?
@DarkQuietWyattON If he is twice as old as you are, that makes you the same age as me. But, in any case, I reiterate my point. A Yeshiva means nothing. You think there are no Christian scholars who have actually studied the Torah in its original language? Please, even most of the Church Fathers studied Hebrew to understand the Torah, and they studied Greek to understand the New Testament. You and your Yeshiva are nothing.
@Dante666 Sure there are xtian scholars who have studied it. You, are not one of them. There are also Jews who have studied the Torah in Hebrew and also the "NT" in its Greek and Aramaic. So my Yeshiva means nothing. Ok. Who is the arrogant one now. By the way, studying it, does not mean you can speak it. It also would make a difference who your teacher was now wouldn't it? Studying Hebrew by a non-native speaker would be rather pointless I would think but again, that's just me.
@DarkQuietWyattON And so what if I am not one of them? You are still the one who's arrogant. Who's talking about studying Hebrew from a non-native speaker? Ah, you wouldn't be aware of the courses offered to teach Biblical Hebrew that is accredited by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem anyway.
@tektontv----So, now that we have your extreme narcisissm out of the way, let me bring up some points. Does not the book of John have jesus saying to a group of Pharisee's "your father the devil". Pharisee's were Jews. Does not the book of John also say that the Jews betrayed jesus and shouted they had no other king but Cesar (which would of course have been true since jesus was not G-d) and as xtians see jesus as somehow intertwined with G-d, we denied G-d?
@DarkQuietWyattON Jesus did not say that to a group of Pharisees; Jesus said that to a specific group of Jews, not all Jews in general. The book of John does not blame all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, only the ones in Jerusalem, as most other Jews outside of Jerusalem have believed in Jesus instead.
@tektontv Did not Martin Luther use the writings of the "new testament" to write his book "The Jews and their lies" and in the Middle Ages, persecution at the hands of the xtians was so problematic, that during the plague, whole villages were burned in some countries (mostly Germany). Also during the "Passion Play", attacks on Jews, rose and it was a tradition for Jews to stay home that day as they knew xtians might attack
@DarkQuietWyattON Martin Luther isn't perfect, and thus it is natural for him to have faults. However, all these tragedies are never justified by the New Testament.
@Dante666 Odd...those who perpetrated them said they were and often used the xtian bible to lead others into acts of depravity. That's ok to turn a blind eye to though right?
@DarkQuietWyattON People can misuse anything and everything to lead others into acts of depravity. It does not follow that the thing which they used - be it political power, money, an ideology, a relic, a philosophy - is itself depraved or meant for such a purpose.
@Dante666 Ok, you are not seeing the point here at all. Yes people can misuse things but some things are more easily "misused" although many see that anti-Semitism was intended by people like John and Paul. Again, you are missing my point. If only I spoke Malay LOL
@DarkQuietWyattON That is absolutely rubbish. John and Paul are both Jews themselves, stupid. Paul even referenced how much of a "Hebrew among Hebrews" he is. Anti-Semitism was never a part of the New Testament. You don't need to speak to me in Malay, because even if you did you'd be just as ignorant.
@tektontv -Now I have heard that John did not actually mean "Jews-Jews" but come on! This idiotic. Martin Luther, a protestant man of G-d or so he claimed, certainly used the age old "they rejected jesus" argument to call for the extermination of the Jews which didn't happen then but was picked up again several hundred years later in Germany.
By the way, I am not boasting. I was commenting and calling you out. It is YOU who is so full of himself it boggles the imagination
@Dante666 - (sigh)-- I am not saying Holding is anti-Semitic. I am saying the NT is. I am saying the same book was interpreted by MANY people over the centuries to kill millions. That was what started this. He said the "NT" was not anti-Semitic and my point is that if it's not, it sure has inspired a lot of people to kill. I gave instances in the book of John. I am not saying any of you are anti-Semitic. I am saying the NT is or at the very least has been translated as such
@DarkQuietWyattON And I'm saying the NT is not. Just because it was interpreted by some people (not many, actually) to be pro-antisemitism doesn't mean that they were correct in their interpretation in the first place. The instances you gave are taken out of context. It's not even translated as such. Many, many atheists have interpreted the Tanakh to be referring to nothing but a flat Earth, does that mean that the Tanakh actually teaches a flat Earth? No!
@Dante666 OH ok, well I mean if YOUR'RE saying it's not that is good enough for me. I am so glad we had this little talk. ROFL. Talk about my arrogance. Sure. You are right about the flat earth thing however, millions have not been put to death by Jews (or atheists) because they believed in the flat earth theory. I am saying that we Jews know how to interpret our own book but you seem to think you know it better than I do so I will go eat dinner and let your arrogance speak for itself
@DarkQuietWyattON Then I shall have my breakfast and we can continue with your self-inflation. But before that, allow me to challenge you to show that the New Testament gave justifiable reasons for those men to use it as a valid argument in their defense of perpetrating such atrocities.
@Dante666 See Martin Luther "The Jews and their Lies" where he quotes Matthew more than once and John more than once. Actually Luther quoted all of the xtian gospels to promote and teach hatred of the Jews....and the people listened in 1543 and in 1943, when his book was being provided to all school children as part of their Aryan studies.
In the theaters for only a week? Come on--if you're gonna make up stuff, make up stuff that isn't so easy to debunk.
Religulous was in theaters for 79 days in the US, and grossed $13,639,115 worldwide. Not huge for a movie, but very, very good for a documentary. (Documentaries just don't do that well as a genre in theaters.)
@onlylettersand0to9 Oy, look, it may be in theaters for 79 days in the US, but in that particular area it ran for only a week. How hard is it to understand that?
If Josephus wrote the T.F. how come nobody quotes the T.F. until Eusebius does it in the 4th century? There is no good reason to believe that anybody pre-Eusebius had the T.F. Eusebius, a confessed deceiver, most likely made it up.
@AgrippaTheMighty Because nobody had good reason to quote the TF. Do you even know why Josephus mentioned Jesus in the TF? Why would anyone choose to quote a text which is derisive of their God?
@Dante666 "derisive of their God?" It doesn’t make sense to understand the TF that way especially with words like “Jesus, a wise man” and “He was [the] Christ” and that’s the original TF not a “filtered” version. If it is derisive of their God as you interpret it, why have Christians since Eusebius used it to defend the historicity of Jesus? The TF would have been too valuable for these early Christian authorities to keep quiet about it.
@AgrippaTheMighty What points? What reason did anybody have to quote Josephus, a Jew, talking about Jesus? You do know that Jews don't think of Jesus as God, right? Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also referred to Jesus using the word "Christ" as a nominal term, not an acknowledgment of his Messiahship. You know those two, right? Nobody before Eusebius had any reason to quote Josephus, and it certainly isn't as "valuable" as you make it out to be.
@Dante666 “What points? What reason did anybody have to quote Josephus, a Jew, talking about Jesus?” “Nobody before Eusebius had any reason to quote Josephus.”
Then if they had no reason (though I totally disagree) I ask my first question again: If it is derisive of their God as you interpret it, why have Christians since Eusebius used it to defend the historicity of Jesus? You are evading the question. I can deal with Tacitus and Pliny The Younger after we’ve cleared out the TF’s forgery.
@Dante666 Your constant posturing with your questions only shows ignorance and lack of honesty. :) You mean to tell me that Christians since Eusebius haven’t used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus? What the hell, are you even mentioning it for? :D
@AgrippaTheMighty Ignorance and lack of honesty my ass! You tell me if Eusebius used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. That shows that you obviously know nothing about why Eusebius quoted the TF. I keep asking you these questions to show how ignorant you are, and you had no idea. Obviously some Christians since the time of Eusebius used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus, but that's not what Eusebius did, moron!
@AgrippaTheMighty And please, use your commas properly. It makes you sound like a retard when I read the comma in your last sentence. Nobody had any reason to cite Josephus for the historicity of Jesus, not especially since Josephus is a Jew and not a Christian, and certainly there are others such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, so stop harping on Josephus like he's your only hope. Fools like you should do yourselves some good reading.
@Dante666 Tell, me, (oops my commas) would you have call me “moron” and used words like “fools like you” if I believed in the historicity of Jesus? I don’t think so. You must be either an all believing Christian or a cultural one since you defend this character so adamantly. Name-calling is evidence of a religious dogmatic attitude not an open to questioning scientific mind. :)
Your information about the TF is faulty, and you pulled it out of Christian ass. :D
@AgrippaTheMighty No, fool, I would still call you a moron because it did not have to do with whether or not you believed in the historicity of Jesus. I called you a moron for using dumbass arguments like "Your constant posturing with your questions only shows ignorance and lack of honesty" which is BS. I'm not defending anyone, but I'm just pointing out that your argument is stupid.
@Dante666 And I thought you were a brainless arguing Christian. Ok, so you're denying being a Christian, and defending the historicity of that man made god called Jesus. :) Right, and your evidence that support your argument is... I'm still waiting, or am I suppose to take your smart-ass word for it? Wait, I thought you were not defending anybody. Tell me, how do you argue my TF point without defending the historical existence of Jesus? It’s not possible is it? :D :D :D
@AgrippaTheMighty Nonsense. Since when did I deny being a Christian? No, Jesus is not a man made god, and right now, the historicity of Jesus didn't even enter into the question. Your arguments by themselves are rubbish. Your arguments are all supported by, what, blind faith? I'm already arguing your TF point by pointing out that you don't even have a valid point, stupid. How hard is it to see that?
@Dante666 You tried to refute it but the true reason that you use your kid like name-calling is because you’re a Christian. Don’t deny it. Insinuating that we don’t even have the TF as almost contemporary evidence is offensive for a Christian like you. And yes, name-calling IS a distraction fallacy. “I mean, with things like "honesty", "sincerity" and "truthfulness", these are all foreign terms to you” This is a straw man argument since you have no evidence.
@AgrippaTheMighty No, fool. The true reason why I'm name-calling is because your arguments are childish. Insinuating anything about the TF does not bother me; what bothers me is your lack of arguments and your failure to present any real facts. We could do fine without the TF, but for the sake of truth, we're showing how desperate you morons are in trying to dismiss evidence. Having no evidence doesn't make it a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man is?
@Dante666 1) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs, which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 2) Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. This is part of a straw man definition, which is what you’re doing: You invent a persona since you have no proof. And a distraction is anything that is off topic especially name calling.
@AgrippaTheMighty Do you even know what "inventing a persona" means? What does persona have to do with proof? Look, dumbass, just admit that you don't even understand the definition. Name calling is not off topic when it is used in conjunction with criticism of an argument, moron. Now stop whining.
@Dante666 Your continually usage of distraction fallacies proves that you rather do that than addressing the arguments and presenting evidence. Kid go cry to mommy, I grew tired of babysitting you. :D
@AgrippaTheMighty And your failure in grammar proves that you don't even know what you are talking about. You presented false evidence and instead of addressing the arguments you screwed up the definition of the fallacies you mentioned. You so incompetent you can't even babysit a baby. It actually takes a lot more skill to do that than to whine like you do, Whiny.
@AgrippaTheMighty And did you mean red herring? In which case, you're still wrong, because name-calling isn't a so-called distraction fallacy unless you are so easily distracted by people calling you a moron that you don't even see why they called you a moron in the first place. Loser.
@Dante666 And yet another distraction fallacy, but you still showed your ignorance on the subject of early Christian fathers with Justin Martyr & the Marcionites. You can't get out of this. :)
@AgrippaTheMighty How is that a distraction when my arguments are still there? You are the one who showed ignorance on the subject of Church Fathers (again, terminology, please) and the Marcionites. They never denied a historical Jesus; they only denied that he's human. You can't get anything out of this.
@AgrippaTheMighty No, their deities are not historical because we have evidence against their historicity, not because of lack of evidence. Again, slippery slope. Did you look it up like I told you to, or did you just waste your time by staring at the words "slippery slope" until you think you figured it out?
@AgrippaTheMighty Obviously not, since those historical people bore those names after the actual mythical characters which they believed in; we're talking about the actual original bearers of the name. Even the Marcionites would laugh at you for misrepresenting their argument, and that means you fell under oversimplifying their argument, meaning you set up a straw man. Of course, it's not like you know what's a straw man to begin with.
@Dante666 Your straw man accusation is fallacious since I didn’t attach my analogy to you or anybody else. Some ancient Greeks believed that their deities had been in reality important figures that people added supernatural qualities to them. If we were to find the historical original to Zeus, would that make the god Zeus historical? Of course not, additionally, you also argued that they were not defending the reality of Jesus, which is not the case with the debate between Martyr & Marcion.
@AgrippaTheMighty How do you even attach analogies to anyone? Do you know what is a straw man yet? There's no such thing as a straw man accusation. Do you even know what is the meaning of "fallacious"? Hell, no! Your Greek theory is all Greek. And that's rubbish. The debate between Martyr and Marcion is not about the historicity of Jesus, it was about whether Jesus was human. Duh.
@Dante666 Furthermore, you also said that you were not defending anybody, a deceitful statement from a Christian that is actively defending Jesus. “We could do fine without the TF,” Another untruthful declaration or do you really think that Christians including JP Holding didn’t use the TF for centuries as an important “evidence” for the historicity of Jesus? You’ve demonstrated both lack of early Christian history understanding, and also dishonesty.
@AgrippaTheMighty@AgrippaTheMighty In this context, I am defending nobody. What's there to defend against? Empty claims from the likes of you idiots? Yes, the TF is not an important evidence for the historicity of Jesus since we've got tons of other evidence. I showed how you are ignorant about early church history, so you're way out of your league to claim that I lack "early Christian history understanding", kid. You're not so much dishonest as truly ignorant of what you are saying.
@AgrippaTheMighty What's there to lie about when you don't even know a thing? You don't even know half the things you said and yet you accuse me of lying? Tough luck! Well, it's not like I enjoy such one-sided arguments with such idiotic hypocrites like you either.
@Dante666 I said, “…if I believed in the historicity of Jesus? I don’t think so. You must be either an all believing Christian or a cultural one since you defend this character so adamantly.” And your answer was, “I'm not defending anyone, but I'm just pointing out that your argument is stupid.” But you’re a Christian a defender of Jesus. On top of it, you tried to conceal the fact that you’re a Christian. You lied to me.
@AgrippaTheMighty A Christian is a follower of Jesus, not a defender of Jesus. There is nothing to defend here, especially when all your arguments fall flat of the evidence. I never tried to conceal the fact that I'm a Christian. Whether or not I am a Christian does not affect the utter ridiculousness of your arguments. I never lied to you, but you lied to me concerning the beliefs of the Marcionites, about Eusebius' citation of the TF, and you lied to yourself about being smart.
@Dante666 “A Christian is a follower of Jesus, not a defender of Jesus.” This is an ultimate fail. What have you been doing but defending the existence of your god with your string of child like name-calling, your pointless posturing, and your failure to intelligently respond my point? The only thing you’re showing is utter ignorance and a behavior that is more kin to a child wanting attention than turn the other cheek, love your neighbor Christian message.
@AgrippaTheMighty I've not been defending the existence of God. I've simply been pointing out the ridiculous arguments that you are making and how idiotic they are. My failure to stoop to your level of intelligence is not indicative of any lack of intelligence on my part. You don't even know what it means to turn the other cheek, and love does not rejoice in ignorance of your kind.
@Dante666 You keep on claiming that I'm a bad debater, but you haven’t provided logical reasons for why I am a bad debater. You can keep calling my argument idiotic forever, but until you actually come up with a logical case, you’re just a broken record.
@AgrippaTheMighty First of all, no shred of evidence is given to support any of your statements. Secondly, the things you cited such as Marcion and Eusebius' reference to Josephus are pitifully laughable and entirely false at the same time. Thirdly, you even went so far as to use the "turn the other cheek" argument despite being so ignorant of what it actually meant.
@Dante666 You keep failing to bring logical counter arguments, and your only resource is to use elementary school tactics like name-calling. I don’t have any intention to listen to a broken record for all eternity, ciao.
@AgrippaTheMighty Oh, look, the big baby who asked for logical counter arguments to what amounts to poor arguments on its part is finally leaving in tears :D
@Dante666 "Oh, look, the big baby who asked for logical counter arguments to what amounts to poor arguments on its part is finally leaving in tears :D" WTF are you trying to say here??? You're completely incoherent.
@AgrippaTheMighty Name calling is evidence of nothing, stupid. Your daddy ever scolded you for being so stupid? Is he of a "religious dogmatic attitude not an open to questioning scientific mind"? No, dumbass. That's the lamest thing I've ever heard today, and I expect the next thing to come out of you to be lamer. Your knowledge about the TF is like life outside of Earth; it may be there, given the vast expanse, but until now there's no evidence of it. Moron.
@Dante666 Maybe it’s time to go see your mommy so she can remind you that honesty is the best policy. Never mind the fact that we’re posting comments in the “Christ Mythicism” upload. No, you’re just calling people morons because they are “bad” debaters, right? It’s nothing to do with the subject of this video. Yes, and tomorrow at noon, pink elephants will fall from the sky. You’re truly the king of sincerity and truthfulness. :D
@AgrippaTheMighty Never mind that you don't even understand half the words you are saying. Probably. I mean, with things like "honesty", "sincerity" and "truthfulness", these are all foreign terms to you, amirite?
@Dante666 When you employ distraction fallacies such as name calling usually means that you don’t have valid evidence for your claim. Prove me wrong. :D Now, would be a good time to once again act like a kid & call me stupid or moron or better yet, go cry to mommy. :( LoL
@AgrippaTheMighty Name calling isn't a fallacy, moron. Do you even know what a fallacy is? See, that's where you're wrong. Again. Keep trying, it doesn't give me less of a reason to keep calling a spade a spade. Loser.
@Dante666 Ok, first, you claimed that because Josephus was a Jew, whatever he had to say was derisive of Jesus. Subsequently, though they continually worked on defending the reality of Christ, none of the pre-Eusebius Christian fathers had the inclination to use the TF. That’s an ass idiotic argument. For many centuries, many Christians such as JP Holding never let that stop them. Once again, you have no evidence to back up your claim, just a continuous string of distraction fallacies. :D
@AgrippaTheMighty Who said that the pre-Eusebian Church Fathers (not "Christian Fathers"; know your terminology) were even defending the reality of Jesus? At the time, nobody even doubted the existence of Jesus since they lived close enough to the time of Jesus. You're starting off on the wrong foot and you'd be eating that foot too.
@Dante666 “Who said that the pre-Eusebian Church Fathers…were even defending the reality of Jesus? At the time, nobody even doubted the existence of Jesus since they lived close enough to the time of Jesus.” This is a factual mistake that you just made, and a proof of your ignorance on the subject. Justin Martyr was continually arguing with the Marcionites about the historical reality of Jesus. The Marcionites did not believe in an historical Jesus but a phantom mythical like Christ.
@AgrippaTheMighty Marcion argued that Jesus was a spirit being that did appear to men in human form as opposed to a true physical manifestation, so the historicity isn't denied. Know your facts.
@Dante666 Right, one could offer the argument that to the ancient Greeks, the Olympians were actually real. Yet, we know these mythical being were not historical.
@tektontv Anybody can accuse me of saying idiotic things but not many potential detractors can actually prove them. You are a Christian, and to you whoever doubts the existence of your Jesus is offensive.
@AgrippaTheMighty I'm also an educated person who has studied the issue thoroughly. That's why you're so obviously an idiot. The book has a chapter with an answer, as I said -- go borrow it and refute it if you're not an idiot.
@tektontv You are presenting the claim of a chapter in a book with unknown citations as evidence, but it isn’t. Your TF education is proof of somebody else’s idiocy??? Does your education also dictate that I’m required to do your work for you? What is the exact citation that I can examine as proof? So far, your clearest “evidence” against my points is your name calling. Elementary school tactics can be indicative of no evidence at all, and it often is.
@AgrippaTheMighty Unknown citations? Can't you read? In your case, you have no evidence, and you can't even comprehend anything beyond "elementary school tactics", can you?
@AgrippaTheMighty The citations are of well known and reputable Josephan and Biblical scholars, and yes, it is proof of your idiocy. Yes, you need to do work, that is what responsible research is all about, but if you're too lazy to do more than post 500 char soundbites, namecalling is all you require, since you do research like an elementary school student. So go borrow the book and answer the chapter, unless you're an idiot. I'll even email you jpgs of the pages if you can't find it otherwise.
@tektontv You accuse me of being a lazy, irresponsible child like researcher, and yet being the claimer, you show stronger signs of what you accuse me of since you haven’t even cited the name of the chapter you are presenting as proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. So far, your best attempts at invalidating my points are a series of argumentum ad hominem, which is strong indication of your lack of evidence.
@AgrippaTheMighty You mean you're too stupid to check a table of contents? There's only one chapter on Josephus in the book, moron. You're obviously making excuses not to have to deal with it.
@tektontv Did I miss something or your “proof” is a speculation from the author “linking” Origen with the TF? What exactly in the chapter lead you to conclude that Holding is correct on his assumption? Getting confirmation from you is like pulling teeth, a sign of your lack of confidence in your “evidence”. This continual failure to present serious corroboration coupled with your incessant usage of argumentum ad hominem as a distraction fallacy is further evidence of your lack of proof.
@AgrippaTheMighty First of all, Dumdum, I *AM* Holding. Second, the chapter is not by me but by Chris Price. Third, you want confirmation, stop being lazy and get the chapter. I know you're too dumb to know this, but complex issues like this don't get resolved in 500 character soundbites. You have to do this thing called "research". Ever heard of it? Try it sometime. Duh ah....
No faster way to win than running away after setting your own rules.
tektontv 3 months ago
Referring you to the author of the chapter for questions to or objections about the chapter is "dodging"?
Standard recipe for Christ myther:
1) Whine.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv “Referring you to the author of the chapter for questions to or objections about the chapter is "dodging"?” Yes it is dodging since obviously you don’t have valid arguments, and have no other recourse but to refer me to the author for questions. You keep on failing to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you not somebody else making the positive claim of Origen’s knowledge of the TF, unless of course you withdraw or change your statement.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I guess any excuse will do for you when you're in a corner. Not that it matters -- Price deals with your silly points elsewhere in the chapter. Too bad you're out of freebies. Ciao.
tektontv 3 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
@tektontv “In seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.” The original James passage found in Antiquities of The Jews has no such mention as admitted in the same pg 23, and deals not principally with the death of James, but with Ananus being removed from the high priesthood, for exceeding his authorities by killing James and some others, and of Jesus, the son of Damneus, appointment as new high priest.
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tektontv As we know, Origen acknowledges that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was the Christ. On pg 24, the author wishfully suggests though once again admitting of the lack of a mention in Antiquities that Josephus, a Pharisee Jew, blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James. On pg 25, we read Whealey’s suggestion of both the execution of Jesus and James as “proof”, but there is no evidence that Origen quotes or knows about Antiquities 18.
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tektontv In the last paragraph on pg 25 we read, “A strong majority of scholars…have concluded that much of the TF is authentic.” Besides being an appeal to authority and to the majority, this is debatable. But the point is that N.T. scholars are not scientists and some historians still view that the key to their work is the power of the imagination, and therefore contend that history should be understood as an art.
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
@tektontv “Price deals with your silly points elsewhere in the chapter” or so you claim. But since you are not able or willing to defend the pages in your book that purportedly maintain Origen’s knowledge of the TF, I have addressed the “connection” between Origen and the TF, and will declare it as speculative, useless and devoid of valid evidence. Adieu.
AgrippaTheMighty 3 months ago
Christ mythicists are to history what creationists are to biology.
CarlosMarti123 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If followers of Jesus and JP Holding representatives like bully & name caller Dante666 is the best that Christianity has to offer, I much rather roast in hell for eternity where more intelligent and interesting people will be found.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You mean where more people who match your low intellect can be found.
Dante666 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@tecktontv- When you spend quite a bit of time name calling, and you are suppose to be a man of G-d, it diminishes you. How does Susan put up with you? LOL
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And how exactly does "name-calling" diminish anybody as a man of God? How does any decent person put up with you?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Are you not to lead by example? Oh...I guess not
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Let me guess, your example is...arrogant ignorance? Or is it ignorant arrogance?
Dante666 4 months ago
@tecktontv- I have my faith that I have stodied for years. You have fantasy. xtians took Judaism and distorted it. it is you who have nothing.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Yeah, "stodied". So, tell me, what "distortion" is there that we Christians allegedly did? You have nothing.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666
That's just a typo Dante. Wyatt's actually quite an intelligent guy usually and he is very knowledgable about Judaism. He has got it into his head though that J.P is a bad guy.
He basically believes that Christians have painted Jesus into the Torah when he obviously isn't there. He thinks Christians are somewhat arrogant for telling Jews how to interpret their own scriptures. It's an understandable position, but I am hoping that the heat can be taken out of the dialogue.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28 I wouldn't call that intelligent.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666
It's understandable. We tend to object when Mormons or Muslims use bad argumentation when interpreting our scriptures. Wyatt and the rabbis he looks to also knows Biblical Hebrew, while most of us Christians do not. So I can see where he is coming from. Of course, I am not willing to concede that non-Jewish scholars cannot come to a right understanding:).
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@Dante666 I call it factual. It clearly states the criteria for the Messiah. He was to be an obervant Jew from the House of David. If his father was G-d he was not from the house of David although xtians get around this by saying this passage is really talking about Joseph. He is to be an ordinary human, not a part of a Trinity (which is having your cake and eating it too). He is to bring peace to the world (nothing is said about a part 2) and gather all the Jews back to Israel
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Ever thought about the matriarchial lineage? Why couldn't the Messiah be both human and part of the Trinity? Are you saying that God can't have His cake and eat it too? And indeed, we have peace, for we have entered into God's rest, i.e., no more works for salvation.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Oh gosh no....golly I would never have thought about matriarchial lineage ROFL. The Torah clearly states in (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) this lineage is to be on the father's side. The Messiah is human, a king. If he were a diety, that would have been stated. You obviously do not read Hebrew. As for peace, it is to be world peace. I think last time I checked the USA was in two wars. Not a good sign of peace now is it?
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Now how about we go all the way back to Genesis 3:15? Whose offspring will crush the serpent's head? Adam's? Or the woman (Eve's)? Those passages you cited do speak of a male ancestor, but the fact remains that even to this day rabbinical law recognizes only matriarchal lineage. If he were merely human then what did David say in Psalm 110:1? And where did the Torah talk about world peace?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Oh my goodness....how great of you to tell me that what Rabbinical law says...I had no idea because my time in the Yeshiva meant nothing. Rabbinical law recognizes the mother as the person that makes a Jew, a Jew. Yes however kingship is passed from the father. The Cohanim and Levin line are patrilineally handed down. Wow...that Yeshiva education was good for something after all
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON So what did David say in Psalm 110:1? Oh, sorry, I forgot that the Yashiva does not cover the whole Tanakh.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 -Cont--He is to rebuild the Temple which was not even destroyed in his lifetime and unite all of humanity in Torah and the worship of G-d. Now a book that tells you specifically what foods to eat, what to wear etc, is not going to tell you that "Oh by the way, I am going to have a trinity being come down to earth but the prophesy will be fulfilled later...during a rerun kind of thing". I mean, it makes to sense. Xtians like to tell us (the Jews) that Isaiah is talking about jesus...
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON The temple, as has already been explained clearly in the New Testament, referred to the body of Jesus, not the temple of Jerusalem. Ever heard of Wisdom literature? Well, since you're a Jew who claims to have studied the Torah, you obviously should have, but you are not showing any understanding of it.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Sure and I also know that the Torah says the Temple...the actual building not jesus but then to say that it is meaning jesus would be you arrogant xtians writing jesus into the Torah, which is my original point with you I believe and you just confirmed you did that but I don't think you realize you do or else your arrogance is greater than what you see as my own
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON The Torah says the Temple, huh? Jesus said the same thing. Claiming that we Christians "wrote" Jesus into the Torah with no real justification, isn't that...arrogant? Saying that it's impossible for God to choose to reveal Himself and fulfill the Torah in this manner if He could choose, isn't that...arrogant? But of course, I'm sure it would not be too arrogant for a mere Yeshiva student to say what God can or cannot do.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Cont-but don't you think as we Jews were the first ones that had the Torah AND can read it in its orginal AND have the oral tradition that we probably know what it says without a group coming along a thousand years later and telling us we got it wrong?? The "NT" was not even written until years after jesus died and there are MANY different versions of the xtian bible. There is but 1 Torah.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON You think the authors of the New Testament weren't Jews? So what if the NT wasn't written until years after Jesus died? At least they were written by reliable eyewitnesses, and your idea of there being many different versions of the Christian Bible is most likely wrong.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 -Most likely?! Are you serious?! KJ, NKJV (I guess changes made it new), NTL, NASB, NJB, AB, CEV...the list goes on and those are just the ones in English and I believe just the protestant ones.
Yes, they were Jews. So what? If I convert does it make a difference I am Jewish? So if the testaments were written around 70 CE, then the writers would have had to have been in their 80's to have known Jesus AND they gospels seem to contradict each other
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Yes, I'm serious, and you're obviously wrong then. These are merely translations. They're not different Bibles by virtue of content. They are all continuously updated in their translation. Do you think there is a single perfect English translation of the Tanakh? No! Does that mean there are different versions of the Tanakh? No!
No, the writers would have only been around the age of 50-60 in 70 AD. The Gospels do not contradict each other.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Hence my point. Different translations give rise to different interpretations. We read the Tanakh in Hebrew and not one letter has changed since it began. Debating you is like debating a brick wall. I can translate what you just wrote into Hebrew but that does not mean I am translating it the proper way you intended. (Shakes head). WOW. Talk about ignorance
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And yet still many different interpretations can be arrived at from reading the same Tanakh. Furthermore, are you aware of our use of concordances?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 We really have only 3 interpreations, Reform, Orthodox and Conservative. There are over 38,000 xtian denominations...each tweaking the bible as they wish. Yes I am aware of your concordances. Are you aware we learn the Torah in its orignal language and so don't have to look anything up any words? Are you aware we have the oral tradition that has been handed down since Moses that also tells us how to interpret the Torah? Reformers and Conservs want the easy route is all
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Again, with the 38,000 denomination argument? Do you even know why are there so many denominations? Let me put it this way: the Methodist Church in Thailand, one denomination; the Methodist Church in India, another denomination, etc. Do they both have any theological differences? Nope. Not a single bit. Do the theological differences between the Protestant groups matter? Nope. Not a single bit. Do you also read the rest of the Tanakh? Nope. Apparently not.
Dante666 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
The Hebrew Jews speak today is exactly the same as Ancient Hebrew?
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@Dante666 I am blind and my aide was typing on a an iPad which has a small keyboard. I am sorry if the typo's offended your intellectual sensibilities and as for having nothing, please see my responses to you. If you should need more examples, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige you in your great quest for knowledge
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Make no mistake, I will not restrain myself from lashing out at you simply because you are blind, because despite your blindness you are so full of this arrogance and ignorance and hypocrisy. At the least I will not call you out on typos, but I will still berate you for arrogant and ignorant arguments.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 ROFL....wow. Calling me arrogant and ignorant. Shall I cry now or later? Your hypocrisy and arrogance are also looming large and seems unchecked at this point.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON What hypocrisy would it be that I am guilty of? I have no use of your crying, so save your tears.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Telling me I am arrogant (which you are not doubt correct) while failing to see this in yourself. I mean, if I have to point out your hypocrisy, you won't believe me anyway. ROFL. I am beginning to see that being called arrogant and ignorant by you was kind of an honor...ROFL. OMG this was great fun. Nothing like debating some guy from Malaysia about the Torah. This was a first ROFL
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Oh, and how am I arrogant? By dismissing your arrogant claims of passing the Yeshiva? I had to point out your hypocrisy earlier. Indeed, some guy from Malaysia is probably not as ignorant as you are.
Dante666 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Chances are you'd fail any test given at any serious theological school. Until you show some signs of scholarship, as opposed to merely boasting and clipping sound bites, you're the one in need of proving yourself. Do any scholars reference YOU in their works? Are you cited as an authority in any books? Do you write for major magazines? No, you don't. But for me the answer to all three is "yes"...so your claim to have "stodied" is without substance.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Nope. I studied in Yeshiva and didn't fail? How are you on YOUR Jewish education. Once again, your narcissism betrays you and I keep telling people this but they don't seem to see it. You have quite the little cult following but then so does Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. You publish your own books. Your friends on You Tube reference you or am I mistaken and people like Kent Hovind, Mike Huckabee (yes he is also a preacher), John Williams or the Pope reference you?.......
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Not failing Yeshiva means nothing. How ironic, that you are complaining about others' narcissism. And hypocritical. Why would you expect people like Hovind or Huckabee or even the Pope to reference Holding? But of course, Holding has been referenced by others before. You need to widen your reading, kid.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 A Yeshiva means nothing? Hmm..It is the study of the Torah which you call "Old Testament". I guess that is nothing. I said I didn't fail. I didn't say I was head of the class or published etc. Holding/Turkel is 43 years old. He is twice as old as I am.
So ok, what illustrious scholars have cited this former prison librarian turned online cult leader?
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON If he is twice as old as you are, that makes you the same age as me. But, in any case, I reiterate my point. A Yeshiva means nothing. You think there are no Christian scholars who have actually studied the Torah in its original language? Please, even most of the Church Fathers studied Hebrew to understand the Torah, and they studied Greek to understand the New Testament. You and your Yeshiva are nothing.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Sure there are xtian scholars who have studied it. You, are not one of them. There are also Jews who have studied the Torah in Hebrew and also the "NT" in its Greek and Aramaic. So my Yeshiva means nothing. Ok. Who is the arrogant one now. By the way, studying it, does not mean you can speak it. It also would make a difference who your teacher was now wouldn't it? Studying Hebrew by a non-native speaker would be rather pointless I would think but again, that's just me.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And so what if I am not one of them? You are still the one who's arrogant. Who's talking about studying Hebrew from a non-native speaker? Ah, you wouldn't be aware of the courses offered to teach Biblical Hebrew that is accredited by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem anyway.
Dante666 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON What online cult leader? Don't be ridiculous. Do you even know who his ministry partner is? Ever heard of Mike Licona?
Dante666 4 months ago
@tektontv----So, now that we have your extreme narcisissm out of the way, let me bring up some points. Does not the book of John have jesus saying to a group of Pharisee's "your father the devil". Pharisee's were Jews. Does not the book of John also say that the Jews betrayed jesus and shouted they had no other king but Cesar (which would of course have been true since jesus was not G-d) and as xtians see jesus as somehow intertwined with G-d, we denied G-d?
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Jesus did not say that to a group of Pharisees; Jesus said that to a specific group of Jews, not all Jews in general. The book of John does not blame all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, only the ones in Jerusalem, as most other Jews outside of Jerusalem have believed in Jesus instead.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 "Only the ones outside of Jerusalem have believed in jesus instead". OMG. ROFL ROFL LOL LMAO ROFL. WOW. Just WOW
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Oh? No more cheap and misinformed arguments from you?
Dante666 4 months ago
@tektontv Did not Martin Luther use the writings of the "new testament" to write his book "The Jews and their lies" and in the Middle Ages, persecution at the hands of the xtians was so problematic, that during the plague, whole villages were burned in some countries (mostly Germany). Also during the "Passion Play", attacks on Jews, rose and it was a tradition for Jews to stay home that day as they knew xtians might attack
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Martin Luther isn't perfect, and thus it is natural for him to have faults. However, all these tragedies are never justified by the New Testament.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Odd...those who perpetrated them said they were and often used the xtian bible to lead others into acts of depravity. That's ok to turn a blind eye to though right?
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON People can misuse anything and everything to lead others into acts of depravity. It does not follow that the thing which they used - be it political power, money, an ideology, a relic, a philosophy - is itself depraved or meant for such a purpose.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Ok, you are not seeing the point here at all. Yes people can misuse things but some things are more easily "misused" although many see that anti-Semitism was intended by people like John and Paul. Again, you are missing my point. If only I spoke Malay LOL
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON That is absolutely rubbish. John and Paul are both Jews themselves, stupid. Paul even referenced how much of a "Hebrew among Hebrews" he is. Anti-Semitism was never a part of the New Testament. You don't need to speak to me in Malay, because even if you did you'd be just as ignorant.
Dante666 4 months ago
@tektontv -Now I have heard that John did not actually mean "Jews-Jews" but come on! This idiotic. Martin Luther, a protestant man of G-d or so he claimed, certainly used the age old "they rejected jesus" argument to call for the extermination of the Jews which didn't happen then but was picked up again several hundred years later in Germany.
By the way, I am not boasting. I was commenting and calling you out. It is YOU who is so full of himself it boggles the imagination
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON I don't see how Martin Luther's faults are related to JP Holding.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 - (sigh)-- I am not saying Holding is anti-Semitic. I am saying the NT is. I am saying the same book was interpreted by MANY people over the centuries to kill millions. That was what started this. He said the "NT" was not anti-Semitic and my point is that if it's not, it sure has inspired a lot of people to kill. I gave instances in the book of John. I am not saying any of you are anti-Semitic. I am saying the NT is or at the very least has been translated as such
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And I'm saying the NT is not. Just because it was interpreted by some people (not many, actually) to be pro-antisemitism doesn't mean that they were correct in their interpretation in the first place. The instances you gave are taken out of context. It's not even translated as such. Many, many atheists have interpreted the Tanakh to be referring to nothing but a flat Earth, does that mean that the Tanakh actually teaches a flat Earth? No!
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 OH ok, well I mean if YOUR'RE saying it's not that is good enough for me. I am so glad we had this little talk. ROFL. Talk about my arrogance. Sure. You are right about the flat earth thing however, millions have not been put to death by Jews (or atheists) because they believed in the flat earth theory. I am saying that we Jews know how to interpret our own book but you seem to think you know it better than I do so I will go eat dinner and let your arrogance speak for itself
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Then I shall have my breakfast and we can continue with your self-inflation. But before that, allow me to challenge you to show that the New Testament gave justifiable reasons for those men to use it as a valid argument in their defense of perpetrating such atrocities.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 See Martin Luther "The Jews and their Lies" where he quotes Matthew more than once and John more than once. Actually Luther quoted all of the xtian gospels to promote and teach hatred of the Jews....and the people listened in 1543 and in 1943, when his book was being provided to all school children as part of their Aryan studies.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And Martin Luther was wrong in taking those passages out of context. So?
Dante666 4 months ago
In the theaters for only a week? Come on--if you're gonna make up stuff, make up stuff that isn't so easy to debunk.
Religulous was in theaters for 79 days in the US, and grossed $13,639,115 worldwide. Not huge for a movie, but very, very good for a documentary. (Documentaries just don't do that well as a genre in theaters.)
onlylettersand0to9 4 months ago
@onlylettersand0to9 Oy, look, it may be in theaters for 79 days in the US, but in that particular area it ran for only a week. How hard is it to understand that?
Dante666 4 months ago
If Josephus wrote the T.F. how come nobody quotes the T.F. until Eusebius does it in the 4th century? There is no good reason to believe that anybody pre-Eusebius had the T.F. Eusebius, a confessed deceiver, most likely made it up.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Because nobody had good reason to quote the TF. Do you even know why Josephus mentioned Jesus in the TF? Why would anyone choose to quote a text which is derisive of their God?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 "derisive of their God?" It doesn’t make sense to understand the TF that way especially with words like “Jesus, a wise man” and “He was [the] Christ” and that’s the original TF not a “filtered” version. If it is derisive of their God as you interpret it, why have Christians since Eusebius used it to defend the historicity of Jesus? The TF would have been too valuable for these early Christian authorities to keep quiet about it.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Have you ever read the whole of the TF?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Yes, several times. How about you?? You don't have good answers for my points? :)
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty What points? What reason did anybody have to quote Josephus, a Jew, talking about Jesus? You do know that Jews don't think of Jesus as God, right? Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also referred to Jesus using the word "Christ" as a nominal term, not an acknowledgment of his Messiahship. You know those two, right? Nobody before Eusebius had any reason to quote Josephus, and it certainly isn't as "valuable" as you make it out to be.
Dante666 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@Dante666 “What points? What reason did anybody have to quote Josephus, a Jew, talking about Jesus?” “Nobody before Eusebius had any reason to quote Josephus.”
Then if they had no reason (though I totally disagree) I ask my first question again: If it is derisive of their God as you interpret it, why have Christians since Eusebius used it to defend the historicity of Jesus? You are evading the question. I can deal with Tacitus and Pliny The Younger after we’ve cleared out the TF’s forgery.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And do you even know for what reason did Eusebius quote Josephus? It is not to defend the historicity of Jesus, as you had alleged.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Your constant posturing with your questions only shows ignorance and lack of honesty. :) You mean to tell me that Christians since Eusebius haven’t used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus? What the hell, are you even mentioning it for? :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Ignorance and lack of honesty my ass! You tell me if Eusebius used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. That shows that you obviously know nothing about why Eusebius quoted the TF. I keep asking you these questions to show how ignorant you are, and you had no idea. Obviously some Christians since the time of Eusebius used the TF to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus, but that's not what Eusebius did, moron!
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And please, use your commas properly. It makes you sound like a retard when I read the comma in your last sentence. Nobody had any reason to cite Josephus for the historicity of Jesus, not especially since Josephus is a Jew and not a Christian, and certainly there are others such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, so stop harping on Josephus like he's your only hope. Fools like you should do yourselves some good reading.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Tell, me, (oops my commas) would you have call me “moron” and used words like “fools like you” if I believed in the historicity of Jesus? I don’t think so. You must be either an all believing Christian or a cultural one since you defend this character so adamantly. Name-calling is evidence of a religious dogmatic attitude not an open to questioning scientific mind. :)
Your information about the TF is faulty, and you pulled it out of Christian ass. :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty No, fool, I would still call you a moron because it did not have to do with whether or not you believed in the historicity of Jesus. I called you a moron for using dumbass arguments like "Your constant posturing with your questions only shows ignorance and lack of honesty" which is BS. I'm not defending anyone, but I'm just pointing out that your argument is stupid.
Dante666 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@Dante666 And I thought you were a brainless arguing Christian. Ok, so you're denying being a Christian, and defending the historicity of that man made god called Jesus. :) Right, and your evidence that support your argument is... I'm still waiting, or am I suppose to take your smart-ass word for it? Wait, I thought you were not defending anybody. Tell me, how do you argue my TF point without defending the historical existence of Jesus? It’s not possible is it? :D :D :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Nonsense. Since when did I deny being a Christian? No, Jesus is not a man made god, and right now, the historicity of Jesus didn't even enter into the question. Your arguments by themselves are rubbish. Your arguments are all supported by, what, blind faith? I'm already arguing your TF point by pointing out that you don't even have a valid point, stupid. How hard is it to see that?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 You tried to refute it but the true reason that you use your kid like name-calling is because you’re a Christian. Don’t deny it. Insinuating that we don’t even have the TF as almost contemporary evidence is offensive for a Christian like you. And yes, name-calling IS a distraction fallacy. “I mean, with things like "honesty", "sincerity" and "truthfulness", these are all foreign terms to you” This is a straw man argument since you have no evidence.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty No, fool. The true reason why I'm name-calling is because your arguments are childish. Insinuating anything about the TF does not bother me; what bothers me is your lack of arguments and your failure to present any real facts. We could do fine without the TF, but for the sake of truth, we're showing how desperate you morons are in trying to dismiss evidence. Having no evidence doesn't make it a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man is?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 1) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs, which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 2) Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. This is part of a straw man definition, which is what you’re doing: You invent a persona since you have no proof. And a distraction is anything that is off topic especially name calling.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Do you even know what "inventing a persona" means? What does persona have to do with proof? Look, dumbass, just admit that you don't even understand the definition. Name calling is not off topic when it is used in conjunction with criticism of an argument, moron. Now stop whining.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Your continually usage of distraction fallacies proves that you rather do that than addressing the arguments and presenting evidence. Kid go cry to mommy, I grew tired of babysitting you. :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And your failure in grammar proves that you don't even know what you are talking about. You presented false evidence and instead of addressing the arguments you screwed up the definition of the fallacies you mentioned. You so incompetent you can't even babysit a baby. It actually takes a lot more skill to do that than to whine like you do, Whiny.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 :( I'm offended now, I'm gonna tell my mommy. :D :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You can tell me. She's right here with me, and she isn't pleased with her son's terrible behavior :D
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And did you mean red herring? In which case, you're still wrong, because name-calling isn't a so-called distraction fallacy unless you are so easily distracted by people calling you a moron that you don't even see why they called you a moron in the first place. Loser.
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You should have just called yourself AgrippaTheWhiny.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 And yet another distraction fallacy, but you still showed your ignorance on the subject of early Christian fathers with Justin Martyr & the Marcionites. You can't get out of this. :)
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty How is that a distraction when my arguments are still there? You are the one who showed ignorance on the subject of Church Fathers (again, terminology, please) and the Marcionites. They never denied a historical Jesus; they only denied that he's human. You can't get anything out of this.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Right, neither did the Greeks, therefore their deities are historical. :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty No, their deities are not historical because we have evidence against their historicity, not because of lack of evidence. Again, slippery slope. Did you look it up like I told you to, or did you just waste your time by staring at the words "slippery slope" until you think you figured it out?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 I didn't know that we have evidence of the phantom like mythical Jesus?
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty That's because we have evidence of the physical human incarnation of Jesus.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 There are historical people that had mythical character names, does that mean that the mythical characters are historical? NO.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Obviously not, since those historical people bore those names after the actual mythical characters which they believed in; we're talking about the actual original bearers of the name. Even the Marcionites would laugh at you for misrepresenting their argument, and that means you fell under oversimplifying their argument, meaning you set up a straw man. Of course, it's not like you know what's a straw man to begin with.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Your straw man accusation is fallacious since I didn’t attach my analogy to you or anybody else. Some ancient Greeks believed that their deities had been in reality important figures that people added supernatural qualities to them. If we were to find the historical original to Zeus, would that make the god Zeus historical? Of course not, additionally, you also argued that they were not defending the reality of Jesus, which is not the case with the debate between Martyr & Marcion.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty How do you even attach analogies to anyone? Do you know what is a straw man yet? There's no such thing as a straw man accusation. Do you even know what is the meaning of "fallacious"? Hell, no! Your Greek theory is all Greek. And that's rubbish. The debate between Martyr and Marcion is not about the historicity of Jesus, it was about whether Jesus was human. Duh.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Furthermore, you also said that you were not defending anybody, a deceitful statement from a Christian that is actively defending Jesus. “We could do fine without the TF,” Another untruthful declaration or do you really think that Christians including JP Holding didn’t use the TF for centuries as an important “evidence” for the historicity of Jesus? You’ve demonstrated both lack of early Christian history understanding, and also dishonesty.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty @AgrippaTheMighty In this context, I am defending nobody. What's there to defend against? Empty claims from the likes of you idiots? Yes, the TF is not an important evidence for the historicity of Jesus since we've got tons of other evidence. I showed how you are ignorant about early church history, so you're way out of your league to claim that I lack "early Christian history understanding", kid. You're not so much dishonest as truly ignorant of what you are saying.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Sir, I caught you lying twice and I forgot to say that I do not talk to liars. This conversion is over. Goodbye.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty What's there to lie about when you don't even know a thing? You don't even know half the things you said and yet you accuse me of lying? Tough luck! Well, it's not like I enjoy such one-sided arguments with such idiotic hypocrites like you either.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 I said, “…if I believed in the historicity of Jesus? I don’t think so. You must be either an all believing Christian or a cultural one since you defend this character so adamantly.” And your answer was, “I'm not defending anyone, but I'm just pointing out that your argument is stupid.” But you’re a Christian a defender of Jesus. On top of it, you tried to conceal the fact that you’re a Christian. You lied to me.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty A Christian is a follower of Jesus, not a defender of Jesus. There is nothing to defend here, especially when all your arguments fall flat of the evidence. I never tried to conceal the fact that I'm a Christian. Whether or not I am a Christian does not affect the utter ridiculousness of your arguments. I never lied to you, but you lied to me concerning the beliefs of the Marcionites, about Eusebius' citation of the TF, and you lied to yourself about being smart.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 “A Christian is a follower of Jesus, not a defender of Jesus.” This is an ultimate fail. What have you been doing but defending the existence of your god with your string of child like name-calling, your pointless posturing, and your failure to intelligently respond my point? The only thing you’re showing is utter ignorance and a behavior that is more kin to a child wanting attention than turn the other cheek, love your neighbor Christian message.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I've not been defending the existence of God. I've simply been pointing out the ridiculous arguments that you are making and how idiotic they are. My failure to stoop to your level of intelligence is not indicative of any lack of intelligence on my part. You don't even know what it means to turn the other cheek, and love does not rejoice in ignorance of your kind.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 You keep on claiming that I'm a bad debater, but you haven’t provided logical reasons for why I am a bad debater. You can keep calling my argument idiotic forever, but until you actually come up with a logical case, you’re just a broken record.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty First of all, no shred of evidence is given to support any of your statements. Secondly, the things you cited such as Marcion and Eusebius' reference to Josephus are pitifully laughable and entirely false at the same time. Thirdly, you even went so far as to use the "turn the other cheek" argument despite being so ignorant of what it actually meant.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 You keep failing to bring logical counter arguments, and your only resource is to use elementary school tactics like name-calling. I don’t have any intention to listen to a broken record for all eternity, ciao.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Oh, look, the big baby who asked for logical counter arguments to what amounts to poor arguments on its part is finally leaving in tears :D
Dante666 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 "Oh, look, the big baby who asked for logical counter arguments to what amounts to poor arguments on its part is finally leaving in tears :D" WTF are you trying to say here??? You're completely incoherent.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty We have no need for this sort of loser argument.
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Name calling is evidence of nothing, stupid. Your daddy ever scolded you for being so stupid? Is he of a "religious dogmatic attitude not an open to questioning scientific mind"? No, dumbass. That's the lamest thing I've ever heard today, and I expect the next thing to come out of you to be lamer. Your knowledge about the TF is like life outside of Earth; it may be there, given the vast expanse, but until now there's no evidence of it. Moron.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Maybe it’s time to go see your mommy so she can remind you that honesty is the best policy. Never mind the fact that we’re posting comments in the “Christ Mythicism” upload. No, you’re just calling people morons because they are “bad” debaters, right? It’s nothing to do with the subject of this video. Yes, and tomorrow at noon, pink elephants will fall from the sky. You’re truly the king of sincerity and truthfulness. :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Never mind that you don't even understand half the words you are saying. Probably. I mean, with things like "honesty", "sincerity" and "truthfulness", these are all foreign terms to you, amirite?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 When you employ distraction fallacies such as name calling usually means that you don’t have valid evidence for your claim. Prove me wrong. :D Now, would be a good time to once again act like a kid & call me stupid or moron or better yet, go cry to mommy. :( LoL
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Name calling isn't a fallacy, moron. Do you even know what a fallacy is? See, that's where you're wrong. Again. Keep trying, it doesn't give me less of a reason to keep calling a spade a spade. Loser.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Ok, first, you claimed that because Josephus was a Jew, whatever he had to say was derisive of Jesus. Subsequently, though they continually worked on defending the reality of Christ, none of the pre-Eusebius Christian fathers had the inclination to use the TF. That’s an ass idiotic argument. For many centuries, many Christians such as JP Holding never let that stop them. Once again, you have no evidence to back up your claim, just a continuous string of distraction fallacies. :D
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Who said that the pre-Eusebian Church Fathers (not "Christian Fathers"; know your terminology) were even defending the reality of Jesus? At the time, nobody even doubted the existence of Jesus since they lived close enough to the time of Jesus. You're starting off on the wrong foot and you'd be eating that foot too.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 “Who said that the pre-Eusebian Church Fathers…were even defending the reality of Jesus? At the time, nobody even doubted the existence of Jesus since they lived close enough to the time of Jesus.” This is a factual mistake that you just made, and a proof of your ignorance on the subject. Justin Martyr was continually arguing with the Marcionites about the historical reality of Jesus. The Marcionites did not believe in an historical Jesus but a phantom mythical like Christ.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Marcion argued that Jesus was a spirit being that did appear to men in human form as opposed to a true physical manifestation, so the historicity isn't denied. Know your facts.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 Right, one could offer the argument that to the ancient Greeks, the Olympians were actually real. Yet, we know these mythical being were not historical.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Ah, no, slippery slope. Look it up, stupid.
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty BTW that idiotic argument is also refuted in the book shown on the screen.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Oh yeah, how so?
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty With data and arguments. Try them sometime.
tektontv 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@tektontv "Idiotic" When you can have a civil conversation, we'll have one.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty When you stop saying idiotic things, I won't use that word.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Anybody can accuse me of saying idiotic things but not many potential detractors can actually prove them. You are a Christian, and to you whoever doubts the existence of your Jesus is offensive.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I'm also an educated person who has studied the issue thoroughly. That's why you're so obviously an idiot. The book has a chapter with an answer, as I said -- go borrow it and refute it if you're not an idiot.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv You are presenting the claim of a chapter in a book with unknown citations as evidence, but it isn’t. Your TF education is proof of somebody else’s idiocy??? Does your education also dictate that I’m required to do your work for you? What is the exact citation that I can examine as proof? So far, your clearest “evidence” against my points is your name calling. Elementary school tactics can be indicative of no evidence at all, and it often is.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Unknown citations? Can't you read? In your case, you have no evidence, and you can't even comprehend anything beyond "elementary school tactics", can you?
Dante666 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty The citations are of well known and reputable Josephan and Biblical scholars, and yes, it is proof of your idiocy. Yes, you need to do work, that is what responsible research is all about, but if you're too lazy to do more than post 500 char soundbites, namecalling is all you require, since you do research like an elementary school student. So go borrow the book and answer the chapter, unless you're an idiot. I'll even email you jpgs of the pages if you can't find it otherwise.
tektontv 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@tektontv You accuse me of being a lazy, irresponsible child like researcher, and yet being the claimer, you show stronger signs of what you accuse me of since you haven’t even cited the name of the chapter you are presenting as proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. So far, your best attempts at invalidating my points are a series of argumentum ad hominem, which is strong indication of your lack of evidence.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You mean you're too stupid to check a table of contents? There's only one chapter on Josephus in the book, moron. You're obviously making excuses not to have to deal with it.
tektontv 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@tektontv Did I miss something or your “proof” is a speculation from the author “linking” Origen with the TF? What exactly in the chapter lead you to conclude that Holding is correct on his assumption? Getting confirmation from you is like pulling teeth, a sign of your lack of confidence in your “evidence”. This continual failure to present serious corroboration coupled with your incessant usage of argumentum ad hominem as a distraction fallacy is further evidence of your lack of proof.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty First of all, Dumdum, I *AM* Holding. Second, the chapter is not by me but by Chris Price. Third, you want confirmation, stop being lazy and get the chapter. I know you're too dumb to know this, but complex issues like this don't get resolved in 500 character soundbites. You have to do this thing called "research". Ever heard of it? Try it sometime. Duh ah....
tektontv 4 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago