Toto

Whenever I enter a google search on a few key terms in Pete's neverending quest to prove his theories, I find that Pete has started threads or discussion topics all over the internet, and is uniformly unsuccessful in finding any support.

This usenet from alt.soc.history.ancient has a fairly complete exposition, which I will note here for future reference.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.h...16a6eca2?pli=1

Transient

Isn't this a little bit personal now?
What is it with people here and their hatred of Pete?
I do not subscribe to his theory but I think he is being victimized now - seems like personal vendettas.
How about letting it drop.

Toto

There's no hatred. I just want to clear the air of invalid claims that keep popping up.

aa5874

But, this happened two and a half years ago. Based on the dates of the posts this argument happened sometime in March 2008. It certainly did NOT just POP up.

I could also claim that HJers are hopelessly trying to convince people that Jesus was just a man all over the internet when they have ZERO CREDIBLE historical evidence.

stephan huller

I am the furthest thing from a bully but I find myself in agreement with Toto. When someone like gracedwithlife (or whatever the name is) no one has a problem piling on. The reason is that gracedwithlife is a believer and believers are the bad guys.

If you notice however the intelligent apologists for organized Christianity never attack Pete's posts. The reason is simple - Pete gives sceptics a bad name, or from their point of view perfectly caricature the opposition

Toto

I posted this because Pete is still repeating his claim that the best explanation of the evidence, or at least a viable explanation, is that the noncanonical gospels are post-Nicea pagan parodies.

This constant repetition amounts to preaching.

aa5874

I don't agree with mountainman's theory about the origin of the Jesus cult or religion but he has CONTINUOUSLY EXPOSED the fact that "Church History" and other writings under the name "Eusebius" are essentially FICTION and was KNOWN to be FICTION with respect to the history of Jesus and the Jesus cult or religion by the ROMAN CHURCH over 1500 years ago.

Now, if mountainman's is wrong it only means that the forgeries, interpolations and fraud occurred EARLIER than he thought. That is all.

Toto

The idea that Eusebius is unreliable is not especially controversial, and hardly needs Pete's support.

aa5874

What!!

There are BILLIONS of people who may not know that "Church History" by Eusebius even exists and that it is FICTION with respect to the history of Jesus and the Jesus cult.

I wish there were a lot more "mountainmen" out there. At least some people would get the message.

"Church History" is FICTION with respect to the history of Jesus and the Jesus cult.

If there was a "moutainman" in the 4th century perhaps we would not have "Church History" or Eusebius.

Transient

This thread is indefensible and should be deleted.
I find it offensive in the extreme.
It is an attempt to provoke Pete and as such demeans the quality of this board and brings it into disrepute.