Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-19-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa, is a real character. If I ever have the opportunity, I'd like to do a documentary on the mystery of aa. His psychological profile is quite fascinating. He's obsessed with people claiming he said something or misrepresenting his position. When Nietzsche went crazy from syphilis he started doing the same thing...

You are VIOLATING the rules. I hope the moderators and Toto will warn you.

aa5874 · 10-19-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

IN tHis PartiCular insTance, i repeateD your words because they Were applicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. The records will show that you are PARROTING. You have an UNDENIABLE history of PARROTING.

aa5874 · 10-19-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's worse than that.

tanya tried to say something nice about aa5874, and it only spurred him to attack her in caps and red letters . . . was that because he didn't get what she said, or because she didn't agree with him absolutely?

Your claim is BLATANTLY erroneous. Why are you doing this this when you have been WARNED by me several times not to do so?

I DETEST what you are doing. Are you NOT a moderator?

I have HIGHLIGHTED my POINTS in RED and CAPS long Before Tanya.

What are your motives?

Please show me where I attacked tanya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

....It is in that context that I understand, maybe imperfectly, the intention of the forum member who started this thread, aa5874. Aside from some overgeneralizations, and conclusions drawn inexpertly, from a strictly logical perspective, is there not, some substance here, which ought to warrant a repudiation, using biblical source material, rather than rules of logic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If you are NOT an EXPERT and if you do NOT understand Logics then how can you even make suggestions about what I have done?

EARL DOHERTY and BART EHRMAN, EXPERTS, use the very NT to DRAW COMPLETELY OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.

Please explain which EXPERT is WRONG from a logical perspective?

Now, It is CERTAIN that one does NOT have to be an EXPERT to PRESENT WRITTEN EVIDENCE.

It is CERTAIN that there are Codices with versions of gMark that END at 16.8.

It is CERTAIN the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices have versions of gMark that END at Mark 16.8.

It is CERTAIN that is written that the VISITORS told NO-ONE about the Risen Jesus in SINAITICUS and VATICANUS CODICES.

The SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS CODICES are WRITTEN EVIDENCE that CAN BE USED TO DEVELOP a theory that NO-ONE heard of the RISEN Jesus story BEFORE the author wrote his story.

It is CERTAIN that it is NOT found written in Philo and Josephus that there were DISCIPLES of Jesus especially Peter and the apostle Paul who PREACHED about a RISEN JEWISH MESSIAH.

JOSEPHUS, a Jew and a Pharisee, DID LIVE in GALILEE when Peter, the disciples, and Paul should have been PREACHING about the RISEN Jewish Messiah.

Jopsephus WROTE until the end of the 1ST century.

Philo, a Jew, of Alexandria, was a contemporary of the supposed disciples, and it is CLAIMED the author of MARK was in Alexandria, the hometown of Philo.

NOTHING can be found written about MARK or the Risen Jewish Messiah in the writings of Philo.

Philo wrote up to or around the middle of the 1ST century.

And, even further, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius ALL wrote that the Jewish Messiah or Messianic rulers were EXPECTED at around 70 CE.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus Histories 5 and Suetonius "Life of Vespasian".

NOTHING can be found in Tacitus and Suetonius of a RISEN Jewish Messiah.

NON-Apologetic Sources, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius CORROBORATE Sinaiticus and Vaticanus MARK.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

When RULES of LOGIC are EMPLOYED Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Mark has DESTROYED the history of the Church, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, and the very Gospels.

Rules of Logics when applied to the following writings have DESTROYED the history of the Church.

1. Sinaiticus Mark.

2. Vaticanus Mark.

3. Philo.

4. Josephus.

5. Tacitus.

6. Suetonius.

NOTHING is found written about a RISEN Jewish Messiah.

I ASKED Tanya some QUESTIONS and then PROVIDED the written Evidence for my theory that gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer based on Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

When will your blatant misreprestation end?

J-D · 10-19-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

IN tHis PartiCular insTance, i repeateD your words because they Were applicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. The records will show that you are PARROTING. You have an UNDENIABLE history of PARROTING.

ON MORE than ONE occasion i HAVE repeated your words because ON more than one occasion they have been APPLICABLE.

J-D · 10-19-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa, is a real character. If I ever have the opportunity, I'd like to do a documentary on the mystery of aa. His psychological profile is quite fascinating. He's obsessed with people claiming he said something or misrepresenting his position. When Nietzsche went crazy from syphilis he started doing the same thing:

Quote:

Above all, don't mistake me! I am, for instance, definitely no bogeyman, no moral monster— I am by nature even the opposite of the type of person who has been admired as virtuous till now.

The joke was that no one was reading Nietzsche's books. No one knew who he was. Who knows one day aa will be recognized for the genius he thinks he is and we will all be telling stories about how we brushed up against him in this forum.

'They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers; but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'

aa5874 · 10-19-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

IN tHis PartiCular insTance, i repeateD your words because they Were applicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. The records will show that you are PARROTING. You have an UNDENIABLE history of PARROTING.

ON MORE than ONE occasion i HAVE repeated your words because ON more than one occasion they have been APPLICABLE.

Your disturbing record of PARROTING is now ADMITTED.

J-D · 10-19-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

IN tHis PartiCular insTance, i repeateD your words because they Were applicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. The records will show that you are PARROTING. You have an UNDENIABLE history of PARROTING.

ON MORE than ONE occasion i HAVE repeated your words because ON more than one occasion they have been APPLICABLE.

Your disturbing record of PARROTING is now ADMITTED.

If there's anything disturbing about the words of yours that I have repeated, then they must have been disturbing when you used them in the first place.

stephan huller · 10-19-2011, 06:39 PM

aa,

I really think that it might be possible that one day people will realize what a great thinker you really are. The Nietzsche comparison was quite accurate. I was actually looking back at your first posts here at the forum and interestingly they were very philosophical in nature. Back in February 2006 you joined the forum as a contributor to a philosophy thread entitled 'what is proof?' I sort of like you as a philosophy guy. I have to admit I find your contributions to this forum sort of unusual. But your early stuff reads like a modern Socratic dialogue. Someone should publish your stuff. Here are some of your deep thoughts back then:

What is Proof?

Quote:

aa - makep, how would you interact to the reality of your death? What will be your subjective perception of your reality. How will I be able to prove my reality to you? I guess when you are proven to dead that your subjective perception of reality may lead you to believe you are alive.

makep - Forget about what the dictionary is defining. If reality is objective, you can't prove it. You've got to prove that you are also an object, without any interaction whatsoever first, before you can prove the existence of another object. This is impossible. Reality cannot prove itself without interacting.If you do not interact, you essentially don't exist. Someone else can prove that you exist, but that will be their perception of you, not yours - you haven't interacted as an absolute objective thing. So reality cannot prove itself. If reality cannot prove itself, then reality is a subjective perception.

aa - You have defied all reason and logic. You want me to throw away my dictionary, you want me to say that reality is subjective, how can we correspond on this forum if noone can agree on what proof means. You are asking me to have blind belief in your reality. Everything known to be real is defined and therefore exist. Your argument is that nothing can be proven. If I can prove that you exist can't you prove you exist? You seem to have a problem with proof, evidence, and objectivity, and want perception and subjectivity to be the standard of reality.

makep - Its simple logic. If we want an objective definition of proof, let the object prove itself of its existence without us interacting (or it interacting in any way) in anyway. You see the limitation of the 'objective proof arguement'?

rupert peabody - Without objective reality, your thread is of no use.You have to ignore the objective reality of the alphabet, the internet, communication and that people exist regardless of your subjective reality.

aa - Objective reality is the basis of standards. Objective reality let us define our world. Without objective reality, our world has no meaning. Everyone's subjective reality would create chaos, no standards, no definition.

uncle jim - What are you disagreeing with! You must exist within reality to make such a statement. Your existence within reality is independent of your mind (or mine) or how well it works. The only issue is - are you aware of your existence or not. If you are aware of your own existence then your mind is functioning rationally.

I find your train of thought here quite coherent. You aren't using red and putting words in capitals throughout your sentences. You seem relatively calm. Quite refreshing.

aa5874 · 10-19-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa,

I really think that it might be possible that one day people will realize what a great thinker you really are...

I have ZERO, NIL, NONE, NAUGHT regard for your opinion.

I came on BC&H to present the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity. That is all.

The written evidence from antiquity, Sinaiticus Mark, Vaticanus Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and NOW Pliny the Younger SUPPORT my theory that NO-ONE preached of a RISEN Jewish Messiah in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

You use the NT and Church writings to develop your theories so what you say about me is POINTLESS.

I don't have time to waste on hopelessly flawed opinion.

I just NEED SOURCES of antiquity, written evidence. That is all.

J-D · 10-19-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa,

I really think that it might be possible that one day people will realize what a great thinker you really are...

I have ZERO, NIL, NONE, NAUGHT regard for your opinion.

I came on BC&H to present the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity. That is all.

The written evidence from antiquity, Sinaiticus Mark, Vaticanus Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and NOW Pliny the Younger SUPPORT my theory that NO-ONE preached of a RISEN Jewish Messiah in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

You use the NT and Church writings to develop your theories so what you say about me is POINTLESS.

I don't have time to waste on hopelessly flawed opinion.

I just NEED SOURCES of antiquity, written evidence. That is all.

The written evidence you have presented does not provide sufficient grounds for your theory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.