J-D

Do you understand the difference between 'some of these statements are historically accurate' and 'some of these statements might possibly be historically accurate'?I would like to be able to understand you, but you appear not to want to assist me to do so. If you want to show something to yourself, I don't know why you need to continue this thread to do that, and if you want to show it to me, endless repetition without ever responding to requests for clarification is never going to do the job.

aa5874

You are ALLOWED to repeat the same things over and over so I will hope that such an allowance is also granted to me.

Again, you have DONE and STILL continuing to do EXACTLY as I wanted.

1. You have ADMITTED that the Canonical Gospel contain statements about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

2. You have NOT presented any SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth.

3. You have UTTERLY failed to present a statement about Jesus in the Canon that is historically accurate.

I will use your ADMISSION and utter Failures in my arguments against HJers.

The Fact that gMark's Jesus is a PHANTOM and NO statement about Jesus in the Canonical Gospels can be found to be historically accurate then the HJ argument has been effectively destroyed.

Toto

I understand you perfectly, even when your English usage is not idiomatic. But YOU do not seem to understand what other people here are saying.

J-D

You were repeating the same things over and over long before I started doing so, and you still are, and you're still showing no signs either that you understand what anybody else is saying or that you understand what you're saying yourself.

The difference between 'all' and 'some', and the difference between 'is' and 'might be' are basic ones; if you don't understand those, I don't see how you can participate in any meaningful discussion.

If you want me to stop repeating the same questions, you could try answering them.

aa5874

Well, you are DEAD wrong. I understand you and J-D perfectly.

Why don't you actually state what you think I don't understand so that I can make myself EXTREMELY clear?

You are just making broad accusations which are really unsubstantiated.

If you are NOT prepared to discuss EXACTLY what you think I don't understand then what is the point?

Anybody can make unsubstantiated claims.

Anyhow let me show you some things that I understand.

I understand Mark 6.48-49Mark 9.2 Do I understand correctly that the statements about Jesus in gMark 6.48-49 and 9.2 cannot be historically accurate?

Well, now if I understand J-D correctly I want him to point out the statements about Jesus that are historically accurate.

1. Is it the feeding of the 5000 men?

2. Is it the feeding of the 4000 men?

3. Is it the Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird and the Voice from heaven?

4. Is it the Temptation with Satan when Jesus was with the angels?

5. Is it the Demons and the 2000 pigs?

6. Is it the INSTANT healing of the DEAF, DUMB, BLIND and Epileptic?

7. Is it the the Cursing of the Fig tree?

8. Is it the raising of the dead?

9. Is it the the calming of the sea-storm?

10. Is it the resurrection of Jesus?

Am I to understand that either you or J-D can show the historically accurate statements about Jesus in gMark?

Sheshbazzar

Some of aa's other threads and arguments I have found to be quite enlightening and persuasive.
But when he returns to the monotonous repetition of this tired old shtick, it can. (and all too often does) drag on for hundreds of posts with no one showing any signs of being impressed or persuaded.
He just can't seem to get it, that attacking miracle claims found within the text is a strawman argument against the possibility of a Jebus that may have lived long before any of that silly crap was invented or written.

Oh well, it gives everyone involved an opportunity to practice and polish their debating and composition skills, even if the subject itself does little to advance any common understanding.
This thread would not be at 316 posts if as aa alleges gMark was 'the PERFECT HJ argument killer' the arguments are obviously still going on in spite of all of aa's repetitious assertions. And we atheists and skeptics here are a friendly audience.

aa5874

It is completely amazing that you have completely IGNORED J-D's repetition. You seem to have ZERO idea what is happening with my thread.

First he does NOT know what certain words mean.

Next he does NOT understand what I mean.

Next he does NOT even understand what you mean.

Next he does NOT understand what Tanya means.

Next he does NOT understand what mountainman means.

Next everybody has insufficient evidence.

I have never seen anything like this in my entire time since posting here.

J-D have NOT presented ONE piece of evidence or source for his 90+ posts except to repeat that there are some statements about Jesus in the Canonical Gospels that cannot be historically accurate and that some may be historically accurate but have Failed to show one statement about Jesus in gMark that is historically accurate.

Anyhow, he did EXACTLY what I wanted.

He MADE OVER 90 posts to my thread and could NOT produce a single source for HJ of Nazareth and could NOT show a single statement about Jesus in gMark that is Historically accurate.

gMark has effectively DESTROYED the HJ argument.

gMark's Jesus is an OBSOLETE ABSOLUTE PHANTOM.

Sheshbazzar

Only 'destroyed' it to those that are willing to buy your arguments.
As I have said, this Forum is a friendly audience, and even here 'playing to the choir' you have encountered a fair share of resistance to your assertions.

Even I, whom have stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that I find the NT texts to be nothing more than 'fabricated horse-shit', and unequivocally that "there never was any living flesh and blood human Jebus", reject the strawman basis (miracles can't happen) on which you are attempting to establish your position.
I am not arguing that you are incorrect in rejecting the existence of a Historical Jebus, I am however arguing that the argument you have been employing in this thread is a strawman argument, one built on attacking statements found within texts that many atheist HJ advocates never have advocated nor held.

The 'god claims' and 'miracle stories' are not any essential part of an atheist argument for the possible existence of a real Jebus, one who was not accurately portrayed in these tall-tales.

aa5874

What resistance are you talking about? I have RECEIVED Zero resistance to the MYTH Jesus theory.

No HJer has been able to present any source or evidence to support the HJ theory. ZERO.

I am just getting lots of NOISE.

When I say gMark's Jesus was an OBSOLETE ABSOLUTE PHANTOM it cannot be Contradicted by any historical source of antiquity.

The Myth Jesus theory is WELL-SUPPORTED by gMark.

What opposition are you talking about?

Who can OPPOSE the evidence in gMark?

Jesus in gMark was a PHANTOM so I don't what is historically accurate about a fiction character.

Tell me who opposed me?

J-D

Because I have many times pointed to things you have said that are not clear to me, or asked you to provide clarification, and you have never responded. I have pointed out many times, to take just one example, that you have never explained what you mean by 'the Myth Jesus theory', and you have never provided the clarification I have been seeking. That's why.

Plus the fact that you typically respond to direct questions by becoming incensed. That doesn't help, either.

As for your understanding of my meaning, you frequently respond to my posts as if I had made assertions which I have never made, which makes me think you don't se the difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying, and when I point out the differences you often become infuriated by that.