Jesus Never Existed????????????????

[Joe Bruno]

This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":


Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

Evidence, please. A drunken debate doesn't count.

[Joe Bruno]

See those little numbers in parenthesis????Those are footnotes to the evidence
in the wikipedia article.You mean you don't know that???????????

[Joe Bruno]

Here is the article, in case you can't find it yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_ref-11

[sbalneav]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
>
> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"

If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.

--
__ _ | It is better to destroy one's own errors
(_ |_) | than those of others.
__)|_) | -- Democritus

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>>
>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
> around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
> God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>
> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
> the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
> want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence.
>

Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.

He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
He himself claimed he would be crucified.
He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.
He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.
He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.

And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
other event in history.

God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
a leg to stand on.

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:58:29 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

Why should you care? You're supposed to be Jewish. Even if Jesus had
existed, as a Jew he would be horrified by what murderous Christians
did to his reform ideas. After all, he was never a Christian. He was
always a Jew. If he ever existeed.

[hypatiab7]

Hah! You forgot to post the addy!

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> > Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
> > There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>
> > If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>
> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>
> He himself claimed he would be crucified.
>
> He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.
>
> He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.
>
> He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.

What evidence would this be, Calvin. Unaccepted quotes from your Bible
that was written by humans?

>
> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
> other event in history.

There is no evidence for this at all. You lose, Calvin. The Bible is not
evidence. It's just a bunch of books written by men and chosen in committee.

And if you mean quotes from your murderous bigoted church fathers
Martin Luther and John Calvin, you lose again. They were just men
who gained too much power and used it to murder people.

>
> God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
> a leg to stand on.

I'll gladly list my sources. You lose again.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/4/2012 11:03 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>>
>>> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>>
>>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>>
>> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>>
>> He himself claimed he would be crucified.
>>
>> He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.
>>
>> He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.
>>
>> He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.
>
> What evidence would this be, Calvin. Unaccepted quotes from your Bible
> that was written by humans?

It's not important that you know. It's only important for those interested
in knowing the truth.

>> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>> other event in history.
>
> There is no evidence for this at all. You lose, Calvin. The Bible is not
> evidence. It's just a bunch of books written by men and chosen in committee.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

I, and billions of others, know that you are wrong.

>> God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
>> a leg to stand on.
>
> I'll gladly list my sources. You lose again.

I love it when you say I lose. That tells me that you know I'm going to
win.

<smirk>

[sbalneav]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>>
>>>
>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>>
>> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
>> around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
>> God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>>
>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
>> the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
>> want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> evidence.
>>
>
> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.

Sure he did.

> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.

Really? There are *no* extant writings *by Jesus himself*. We have other
people writing and saying Jesus SAID that. There's a difference.
Oh, and those writings by other people? 25 to 40 years after Jesus' death.

> He himself claimed he would be crucified.

No extant writings by Jesus.

> He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.

No extant writings by Jesus.

> He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.

No extant writings by Jesus.

> He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.

No extant writings by Jesus.

> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
> other event in history.

Excellent! Present the evidence here:

--
__ _ | You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure,
(_ |_) | what you do not understand.
__)|_) | -- Leonardo da Vinci

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 03:25:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>>
>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

Complete and utter bullshit.

There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.

>There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
>around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
>God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"

Except that there's no evidence even for the former.

>If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
>the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
>want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence.

No contemporary historian mentions any of it.

Like Philo who was at the heart of events at the time, because he was
related to the Herods by both marriage and business.

Honest scholars like Photius and Schweitzer spent many long years
searching historical sources for evidence and found none.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 04:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>> other event in history.

Yet another Ramsey lie noted.

>Excellent! Present the evidence here:

Where do these transparent liars get this bullshit from?

There is _no_ evidence outside Christiantradition - ad you can't use
that to prove itself..

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/4/2012 11:10 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>>>
>>> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
>>> around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
>>> God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>>>
>>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
>>> the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
>>> want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>
> Sure he did.
>
>> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>
> Really? There are *no* extant writings *by Jesus himself*.

And no one says you have to believe it.

But men (and women) who have studied the ancient texts all agree
that the extant writings were written by eye-witnesses who were there,
who heard Jesus say the words, and who later willingly died for
their faith rather than recant what they wrote.

>> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>> other event in history.
>
> Excellent! Present the evidence here:

I'll be glad to. In fact, I was intending to anyway.

Only thing is, there is alot to it.

I already know you are not going to read it all.

But, like I said, I'm not trying to convince you.

I'm only using this newsgroup to propagate the gospel message in any form
that I can.

You can disagree all you want to. It doesn't matter to me.

It's going to take some time to assemble it all together.

I'll start posting the evidence in the next few days.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Somebody tell him it's going to be a pleasure making him eat those words.

Then I will have written proof that he is the pathological liar he
accuses others
of being.

<smirk>

[sbalneav]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 11:10 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>>>>
>>>> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering
>>>> around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of
>>>> God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>>>>
>>>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if
>>>> the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people
>>>> want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>>
>> Sure he did.
>>
>>> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>>
>> Really? There are *no* extant writings *by Jesus himself*.
>
> And no one says you have to believe it.
>
> But men (and women) who have studied the ancient texts all agree
> that the extant writings were written by eye-witnesses who were there,
> who heard Jesus say the words, and who later willingly died for
> their faith rather than recant what they wrote.

No, that's not true.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195154622

In one of the better books on the subject, Bark Ehrman, sums it up quite
nicely:

"... They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by
authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were
writing at different times to different communities with different problems and
concerns."

So men who have studied the ancient texts DO NOT all agree that the extant
writings were written by eye-witnesses.

In fact, quite a number of NT scholars do not consider them to be eyewitness
testimony.

>>> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>>> other event in history.
>>
>> Excellent! Present the evidence here:
>
> I'll be glad to. In fact, I was intending to anyway.
>
> Only thing is, there is alot to it.

Post your top piece. The numero-uno. The one that's going to drop my jaw,
fall to my knees, and renounce my ways on the spot.

> I already know you are not going to read it all.
>
> But, like I said, I'm not trying to convince you.
>
> I'm only using this newsgroup to propagate the gospel message in any form
> that I can.
>
> You can disagree all you want to. It doesn't matter to me.
>
> It's going to take some time to assemble it all together.
>
> I'll start posting the evidence in the next few days.

Looking forward to it. You'll be the first theist ever to show any evidence
for the resurrection.

--
__ _ | Grass is the forgiveness of nature - her constant
(_ |_) | benediction. Forests decay, harvests perish, flowers
__)|_) | vanish, but grass is immortal. -- Brian Ingalls

[Calvin Ramsey]

Yes, it is true.

You're focusing on the New Testament writings themselves.

There are many more extant writings, known primarily only by scholars, that
were compiled by contemporary eye-witnesses of Jesus.

>
> http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195154622
>
> In one of the better books on the subject,

And that's not necessarily true. One reviewer of Ehrman's book
succinctly writes:

"Many readers have already commented on how Ehrman fails to provide any
good information but basically his own point of view. I completely agree
with these statements. Ehrman frequently uses poor and very simple
analogies to "prove" his point. He rarely ever clearly backs his point
with something solid. "I don't need to give every piece of data here to
make my basic point" (229). I find most of the book just verbage and
mostly opinion, which is unusual for a historical introduction.

"What I find most interesting is that he states that religious people
must use a lot of faith to believe what they do, while in fact I feel
the same way about him. He clearly goes into all his pursuits with an
agenda while totally under the guise that he is "objective" and "neutral".

"The basic premise of his opinions are skepticism, which basically is no
foundation for any type of opinion. Anything he disagrees with is
questionable because he believes one cannot possibly know for sure. If
John states that Jesus says he is the Son of God, he would state that
that was due to the pre-conceptions of the disciples who attributed such
words to Jesus. Besides John was written later. If Mark gave any
evidence toward Jesus stating that he was God, Ehrman would state that
this document was most likely changed by a later writer. His technique
is basically to cast doubt into all controversial parts of the Bible.
Which is fine, except that anyone can easily see that he rarely ever
does any close readings of the texts, only makes generalizations. In
fact he rarely ever quotes the texts.

"One should also note that he never quotes or paraphrases other scholars
who may disagree with him."

That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
book.

[Joe Bruno]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 8:15:05 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 03:25:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
>
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.
>
>
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.
>
>
>

EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EXISTED

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm


http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread390640/pg1

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-21/tech/jesus.box_1_andre-lemaire-limestone-burial-box-aramaic?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-a-evans/archaeological-evidence-for-jesus_b_1370995.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqlFkGaDV_M&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUcXXbde4w&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGb3pOq8ihc&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY&feature=related

http://3dchristianity.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/josephus-on-jesus-evidence-for-jesus-existence/

http://focusonjerusalem.com/JesusChrist-factorfiction.html

http://askville.amazon.com/historical-proof-Jesus-Christ-existed-life-story-accurately-presented-Bible/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1230646

[Joe Bruno]

I haven't seen Calvin call anybody a "pathological liar"

Let's see the EVIDENCE that he did.

You know what evidence is, you chickenshit little scumbag?

Anytime you decide you have the balls to call me a "coward" to my face, I'm ready.Then you'll get the chance to "rearrange my face" like you said those
Poles would.
>
>
>
> <smirk>

[Joe Bruno]

OOPS Sorry, Calvin. I was speaking to Little Chickenshit Lee when I wrote that.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > <smirk>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/5/2012 1:31 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:

> OOPS Sorry, Calvin. I was speaking to Little Chickenshit Lee when I wrote that.

No problem. I figured you were after your first sentence.

I appreciate it.

[Constance Knoring]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c896e374-b76a-475d...@googlegroups.com:

bull fucking shit!!!!! you been wiping your fuckin ass with with with
fucken wikipedeo pages you shit for braisn liar!!!!!!!!

what a fcking moron you are!!!!!!! scholors dont agree on anything , that
is why there are so many!!!!!!!!!

go piss up a rope you anal rententive asshat!!!!

[Joe Bruno]

Go back and work your corner,filthy whore. Your customers are getting horny.

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:04:00 AM UTC-8, Constance Knoring wrote:

> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:c896e374-b76a-475d...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>
> > existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>
> > regard theories of his non-existence as effectively
>
> > refuted.[9][10][11]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> bull fucking shit!!!!! you been wiping your fuckin ass with with with
>
> fucken wikipedeo pages you shit for braisn liar!!!!!!!!

YOu can't read, can ya jackass?I quoted someone else.DAMN,YOU ARE STUPID
>
>
>

[Mike Painter]

There is no evidence outside the four gospels according to "The Jesus
Puzzle."

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:55 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno

>>
>>
>> There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.
>>
>>
>>
>EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EXISTED
>
>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

I'm sure the rest follow this pattern.

This reminds me of the joke about prisoners telling jokes by number
because everybody had heard them so often.

Only the semi-literate Christians continue to claim this as evidence.

Philip Jose Farmer's biography of Doc Savage is better done.

[sbalneav]

All right, what extant writings are these?

>> http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195154622
>>
>> In one of the better books on the subject,
>
> And that's not necessarily true. One reviewer of Ehrman's book
> succinctly writes:

<snip negative review>

Mea culpa. I should have said *I* found it one of the better books on the
subject. I found positive reviews for the book, so I won't enter into a
"duelling reviews" debate with you. I think I've proved my point.

> That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
> book.

He is, however, a scholar, and I was addressing your claim that ALL scholars
recognize them as eyewitness accounts. They obviously don't.

As well, they may very well have BEEN eyewitness accounts at an early stage:
they may have borne witness to a Jewish scholar named Jesus who preached an
apocalypic message, and was crucified by the Romans for inciting anti-roman
feelings amongst the populace. The *supernatural* bits were tagged on later by
authors in the first century. This is, of course, one of the key features of
the Documentary Hypothesis. No one denies that the bible contains SOME factual
and historical material. Evidence for Jesus' existence is very flimsy indeed,
but so long as no-one asserts that he was anything other than an ordinary
Jewish religious figure who did a lot of walking and talking, we can let it
pass on the flimsy evidence we have. If someone wants to assert he was God
incarnate who raised the dead, performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes,
walked on water, and rose from the dead, well, that's an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
and it's going to need a bit more evidence than some quickie mentions by
Tacitus and Josephus that there may have been a guy known as Jesus wandering
around at the time.

--
__ _ | To poke a wood fire is more solid enjoyment than almost
(_ |_) | anything else in the world.
__)|_) | -- Charles Dudley Warner

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:45:28 -0800, Mike Painter
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:55 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.
>>>
>>EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EXISTED
>>
>>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

The moron expects us to do his work for him, rather than citing which
bit he imagines supports his contention.

He needs to give us what he thinks is the most convincing piece of
evidence and be prepared to defend it as such.

>I'm sure the rest follow this pattern.

If there actually were any evidence Christianity would have provided
it long ago, instead of the standard list only one item of which even
mentions Jesus and that is an obvious forgery.

>This reminds me of the joke about prisoners telling jokes by number
>because everybody had heard them so often.
>
>Only the semi-literate Christians continue to claim this as evidence.

Worse than semi-literate, the stupid ones.

Who imagine (like Bruno) that a pile of steaming crap is somehow
better than a single piece that stands up to scrutiny.

If Bruno really were the Jew he pretends to be, he would know that the
Josephus passage which is all they've got wasn't written by a Jew.

And that Jesus wasn't the Messiah the Jews were expecting, who would
free them from Roman occupation.

>Philip Jose Farmer's biography of Doc Savage is better done.

These morons can't grasp that nobody would give a toss about their
hypothetical God and their equally hypothetical Jesus if they kept
their beliefs where they belong.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:05:20 -0800, Father Haskell wrote:

> On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>> regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>

> Evidence, please. A drunken debate doesn't count.

I'd count the shear number of gospels discovered as some indication that
there may well have been one or more real figures behind the myth.

Actually, I'm not sure it really matters. Christ's reported saying stand
or fall on their own merits.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Ramsey: "I won't tell you because you will find some excuse to ignore
them"

>>> http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195154622
>>>
>>> In one of the better books on the subject,
>>
>> And that's not necessarily true. One reviewer of Ehrman's book
>> succinctly writes:
>
><snip negative review>
>
>Mea culpa. I should have said *I* found it one of the better books on the
>subject. I found positive reviews for the book, so I won't enter into a
>"duelling reviews" debate with you. I think I've proved my point.

If he actually had anything he would have provided it, instead of
saying "scholars think so but I'm not going to say who and how they
reach that conclusion".

>> That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
>> book.
>
>He is, however, a scholar, and I was addressing your claim that ALL scholars
>recognize them as eyewitness accounts. They obviously don't.
>
>As well, they may very well have BEEN eyewitness accounts at an early stage:

Trouble is, that is a rationalisation.

There simply isn't the evidence.

>they may have borne witness to a Jewish scholar named Jesus who preached an
>apocalypic message, and was crucified by the Romans for inciting anti-roman
>feelings amongst the populace. The *supernatural* bits were tagged on later by
>authors in the first century.

However there is no evidence from contemporary records or historians.

We have Philo's (born something like 20 BCE, died something like 55
CE) writings, and his lifetime spanned the claimed events of the
Gospels. He was Jewish aristocracy and a historian at the heart of
events, being close to the Herods with business dealings as well as an
in-law - his nephew was married to Herod Agrippa II's daughter.

The only thing they have is an obvious Christian insertion in Josephus
that was obviously not written by a Jew - no Jew would have called
Christianity the truth, nor would he have called the coming of the
Messiah a misfortune for them.

And there was also Justus Tiberias whose writings are now lost, but
whom Christian writers like Photios a few hundred years later had
access to and couldn't find any mention either.

And in the twentieth century Albert Schweitzer (yes, that Albert
Switzer, the missionary and Bach scholar who set a hospital at
Lambarene) spent many decades searching for evidence and fond none.

> This is, of course, one of the key features of
>the Documentary Hypothesis. No one denies that the bible contains SOME factual
>and historical material.

It also contains myth and legend.

The historical part is with their spin, and as with any other
historical research, it requires corroboration from multiple sources.

> Evidence for Jesus' existence is very flimsy indeed,
>but so long as no-one asserts that he was anything other than an ordinary
>Jewish religious figure who did a lot of walking and talking, we can let it
>pass on the flimsy evidence we have.

What little evidence there is, is actually against rather than for.

The only source is the Christian tradition, in books that re-tell
earlier Mediterranean myths and legends in a first century Judean
setting. Virgin births of sons of gods by mortal women were a dime a
dozen. Like Hercules, Perseus, Dionysus, (a.k.a Adonis or Adonai),
Theseus and even Krishna. They also died, came back to life again and
when they finally died again they were railed to the heavens to become
the Greek constellations.

The same books make up major historical events that never happened -
like the whole nativity story. The Romans didn't make people travel
for many days to and from where they were to be counted for a census
and certainly not at the worst time of year for it - the Empire would
have ground to a halt in the region.

And from the evidence within the NT, those of Paul's epistles that are
considered genuine (ie the earliest which pre-date the Gospels even
though they might not have been written by somebody called Paul)
describe a spiritual Christ not a human Jesus. He knows nothing of
one, none of the biographic details etc.

> If someone wants to assert he was God
>incarnate who raised the dead, performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes,
>walked on water, and rose from the dead, well, that's an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
>and it's going to need a bit more evidence than some quickie mentions by
>Tacitus and Josephus that there may have been a guy known as Jesus wandering
>around at the time.

Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus, just some variant of "Christos" in a
very short passage that gets basic historical details wrong that one
might have expected a Roman senator and historian to know.

None of the early (even if genuine) quotes do apart from the Christian
insertion in Josephus.

Which latter is all they've got.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 17:46:20 +0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
<mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:05:20 -0800, Father Haskell wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>>
>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>>> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>>> regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>>
>> Evidence, please. A drunken debate doesn't count.
>
>I'd count the shear number of gospels discovered as some indication that
>there may well have been one or more real figures behind the myth.

Which makes it little different than Robin Hood or King Arthur.

It's interesting that Christans who claim these are evidence, allso
dismiss their content.

They're also part of the Christian tradition though, just branches of
it that lost out.

>Actually, I'm not sure it really matters. Christ's reported saying stand
>or fall on their own merits.

The problem is that this isn't how we are expected to see it, and in
any case his sayings weren't original.

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:45:35 AM UTC-8, Mike Painter wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:55 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EXISTED
>
> >
>
> >http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
>
>
>
> I'm sure the rest follow this pattern.

Which means you didn't bother to read them. In spite of that, you are passing judgement on them.Is that an example of atheist objectivity, fairness, and
integrity????
>
>
>

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:42:04 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:45:28 -0800, Mike Painter
>
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:55 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>
> >>>
>
> >>> There is no evidence whatsoever outside Christian tradition.
>
> >>>
>
> >>EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EXISTED
>
> >>
>
> >>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
>
>
>
> The moron expects us to do his work for him, rather than citing which
>
> bit he imagines supports his contention.

I presented articles which cite documented facts and expected you to read them for yourselves like educated adults would do.In your case, that is probably expecting too much.

>
>
>
> He needs to give us what he thinks is the most convincing piece of
>
> evidence and be prepared to defend it as such.

No, I don't.There is no single piece of evidence that supports Jesus existence.
It is a body of evidence which I presented.

>
>
>
> >I'm sure the rest follow this pattern.
>
>
>
> If there actually were any evidence Christianity would have provided
>
> it long ago, instead of the standard list only one item of which even
>
> mentions Jesus and that is an obvious forgery.

WRONG.Christianity is a religion, a faith. Religions do not begin by giving
prosepective converts a history lesson.The idea that Christ never existed
arose in the 19th century in France. Before that, nobody questioned the reality
of Jesus existence.All that info was in the wikipedia link I provided.
Obviously, you are unable to read it or afraid to read it.

>
>
>
> >This reminds me of the joke about prisoners telling jokes by number
>
> >because everybody had heard them so often.
>
> >
>
> >Only the semi-literate Christians continue to claim this as evidence.
>
>
>
> Worse than semi-literate, the stupid ones.
>
>
>
> Who imagine (like Bruno) that a pile of steaming crap is somehow
>
> better than a single piece that stands up to scrutiny.
>
>
>
> If Bruno really were the Jew he pretends to be, he would know that the
>
> Josephus passage which is all they've got wasn't written by a Jew.

EVIDENCE?????????????????????????????????????
So now you are claiming to know what all Jews know????????
I went to Hebrew school for 4 years and they never even mentioned Josephus.
Josephus is not a religious figure.

>
>
>
> And that Jesus wasn't the Messiah the Jews were expecting, who would
>
> free them from Roman occupation.

The Old Testament Messiah was prophesied 800 years before the Romans entered Judea, you ignorant bastard.The prophesy has nothing to do with Rome.
>
>
>

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <k77cek$9lk$1...@dont-email.me>,
calvin...@live.com says...

> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.

> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.

Never. Not once do the Gospels show Jesus claiming to be
the son of God.

This is significant. Remember that the Gospels and the
sayings attributed to Jesus therein were written long, long
after the times of the supposed events. When the latter-day
writers were inventing the details of Jesus's life and
ministry -- including the words that would someday be
printed in red letters in the Bible -- they could have
added such a claim of divine identity, if they themselves
believed that Jesus was the son of God. So why didn't they
do so? Not only do the Gospels themselves not support your
claim above, they constitute prima facie evidence that the
earliest Christians had no such belief, either.

Once again you demonstrate that you know little about your
own religion and its history, Calvin: You're a thin tin
funnel through which a flood of premixed doctrine pours,
but like a funnel you have no actual understanding of the
material moving through you.

> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
> other event in history.

Repeating foolish claims ad nauseam does not make them any
less stupid. Outside the New Testament, there is zero
evidence for the resurrection.

> God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
> a leg to stand on.

If so, God is just as inept as you are -- making him not
only unworthy of worship but deserving of outright scorn.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:29:16 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:

>In article <k77cek$9lk$1...@dont-email.me>,
>calvin...@live.com says...
>
>> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>
>> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>
>Never. Not once do the Gospels show Jesus claiming to be
>the son of God.
>
>This is significant. Remember that the Gospels and the
>sayings attributed to Jesus therein were written long, long
>after the times of the supposed events. When the latter-day
>writers were inventing the details of Jesus's life and
>ministry -- including the words that would someday be
>printed in red letters in the Bible -- they could have
>added such a claim of divine identity, if they themselves
>believed that Jesus was the son of God. So why didn't they
>do so? Not only do the Gospels themselves not support your
>claim above, they constitute prima facie evidence that the
>earliest Christians had no such belief, either.

One of the more interesting things, is that "Barabbas" means "Son of
man" and also "Son of father" in the religions of the region.

Which puts a different slant on that story.

>Once again you demonstrate that you know little about your
>own religion and its history, Calvin: You're a thin tin
>funnel through which a flood of premixed doctrine pours,
>but like a funnel you have no actual understanding of the
>material moving through you.

Or anything else.

[sbalneav]

Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

I agree. However, the "bar" is much lower if we're not making any
extraordinary claims. The point I'm trying to make with Calvin is, there *may*
be an element of truth in the Jesus story. Maybe there was a guy named Jesus
who was a religious teacher who was crucified by the Romans. But *even if* you
prove those salient facts, it DOESN'T PROVE all the extraordinary claims about
Jesus. Christians always think that if they can find even one scrap of paper
that says Jesus actually existed, that it somehow validates the entire story,
when clearly, it does not.

This is the variation on the "liar, lunatic, or lord" proof, which conveniently
leaves off the 4th option: legend.

>>they may have borne witness to a Jewish scholar named Jesus who preached an
>>apocalypic message, and was crucified by the Romans for inciting anti-roman
>>feelings amongst the populace. The *supernatural* bits were tagged on later by
>>authors in the first century.
>
> However there is no evidence from contemporary records or historians.
>
> We have Philo's (born something like 20 BCE, died something like 55
> CE) writings, and his lifetime spanned the claimed events of the
> Gospels. He was Jewish aristocracy and a historian at the heart of
> events, being close to the Herods with business dealings as well as an
> in-law - his nephew was married to Herod Agrippa II's daughter.
>
> The only thing they have is an obvious Christian insertion in Josephus
> that was obviously not written by a Jew - no Jew would have called
> Christianity the truth, nor would he have called the coming of the
> Messiah a misfortune for them.
>
> And there was also Justus Tiberias whose writings are now lost, but
> whom Christian writers like Photios a few hundred years later had
> access to and couldn't find any mention either.
>
> And in the twentieth century Albert Schweitzer (yes, that Albert
> Switzer, the missionary and Bach scholar who set a hospital at
> Lambarene) spent many decades searching for evidence and fond none.

Absolutely. The evidence for a historical Jesus is scanty and dubious at best,
and an outright fabrication at worst. They often pull out the "Well you can't
prove Socrates existed either!" ploy, which is true: we can't, he might have
been an invention of Plato. But what we discuss about Socrates is what he
*said*. His philosophy, which can be debated and discussed separate from the
question of his factual existance. Socrates made no real supernatural claims.
The entire POINT of the Jesus myth rests on what he WAS, the son of a supposed
God. If Christians want to portray Jesus as merely a great teacher who had
some important insights on moral philosophy, well, great! We don't need to
absolutely prove his existance in order to have a discusssion around what he
supposedly said. Theists, however, don't hold him up as a wonderful example
because of merely his teachings, but rather, because of fundamentally what he
was. Therefore, for Calvin to prove his hypothesis, the bar has to be MUCH
higher.

>> This is, of course, one of the key features of
>>the Documentary Hypothesis. No one denies that the bible contains SOME factual
>>and historical material.
>
> It also contains myth and legend.
>
> The historical part is with their spin, and as with any other
> historical research, it requires corroboration from multiple sources.

Yup!

--
__ _ | Knowledge: noun. The small part of ignorance that we
(_ |_) | arrange and classify.
__)|_) | -- Ambrose Bierce. "The Devil's Dictionary"

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:03:16 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Absolutely. The evidence for a historical Jesus is scanty and dubious at best,
>and an outright fabrication at worst. They often pull out the "Well you can't
>prove Socrates existed either!" ploy, which is true: we can't, he might have
>been an invention of Plato. But what we discuss about Socrates is what he
>*said*. His philosophy, which can be debated and discussed separate from the
>question of his factual existance. Socrates made no real supernatural claims.
>The entire POINT of the Jesus myth rests on what he WAS, the son of a supposed
>God. If Christians want to portray Jesus as merely a great teacher who had
>some important insights on moral philosophy, well, great! We don't need to
>absolutely prove his existance in order to have a discusssion around what he
>supposedly said. Theists, however, don't hold him up as a wonderful example
>because of merely his teachings, but rather, because of fundamentally what he
>was. Therefore, for Calvin to prove his hypothesis, the bar has to be MUCH
>higher.

If there was much evidence as there is for Socrates they might have a
point.

While there are two sources that write about him, they do corroborate
each other.

And as you say, it doesn't actually matter whether he was real or not.
The important thing is his ideas and the Socratic method.

It is like arguing whether Shakespeare, Bacon or the Earl of Oxford
wrote the plays - it doesn't actually matter, the plays are the
important thing.

Instead they tell us we believe Socrates was real and imagine we are
inconsistent because of some strawman position about Jesus.

They see things as black and white absolutes, instead of varying
degrees of confidence according to corroborated evidence from multiple
sources and the quality of those sources.

The only source for Jesus is a book of religious propaganda telling
followers what to believe, that includes magic, physical
impossibilities and events that manifestly never happened.

Coupled with the fact that no contemporary historian mentions any of
it, and neither do the earliest Christian writings which describe a
spiritual Chris without any of the biographic details from the later
Gospels.

And the fact that the Gospel writers (who are claimed to be eye
witness and disciples, and practicing Jews) knew neither the local
language (three out of four) nor the history and geography of the
region.

[Constance Knoring]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:44094937-72be-44e9-a5d7-
20b4bb...@googlegroups.com:

no , yore fucking stupid you fucking fucktard shitwad!!!!!!! you didnt
quote proeplry and left out the fuckin footnotes , so why shood anybuddy
fucking bother two trust you????

youre just a typicakl fucking religious asshat fucktard passing judjement
on everywon else!!!!!!!! why the fuck do you fucking think you can judje
others anyway???????? its cuzz you know that yore a rleigoius fucktard
and its the only way you can make yoreself feel superrior!!!!!!!

well go piss up a fuckin rope and blow it out your cakehole shit head!!!!

[MarkA]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:58:29 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:

> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
>
> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard
> theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

So, this thirty-something political activist is walking around Jerusalem,
healing lepers, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine,
etc, etc, and nobody thought it was worth writing an account of any of
it because *EVERY* prophet on the corner was doing those things? Really?

So, the stories of his exploits get told and re-told among his fans for
decades before anyone decides it is worth writing them down, and
you don't suppose that anyone exaggerated anything at all in all those
re-tellings? Really?

I guess it ultimately comes down to a judgment call of which seems more
likely to you: God is born as a human, openly performs miracles, but
nobody writes anything down until about 50 years later, and nothing gets
exaggerated, OR: an otherwise unremarkable political activist attracts a
bit of a following, but is eventually caught and executed. After his
death, his followers tell each other tales of his exploits, embellishing
them with each re-telling, until they are eventually put into writing.
Those writings are then picked over by a group of people laying the
foundation of a new religion, who select the tales that tell the story
they want told. Centuries later, people think that the stories are a
historically accurate account of real events, largely because they were
taught to believe them since they were small children.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:20:23 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:58:29 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>>
>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard
>> theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

Only fundie "scholars" with an axe to grind.

But notice Bruno doesn't say who they are orand how they reach their
"conclusion".

And until he does that it remains just so much hot air.

>So, this thirty-something political activist is walking around Jerusalem,
>healing lepers, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine,
>etc, etc, and nobody thought it was worth writing an account of any of
>it because *EVERY* prophet on the corner was doing those things? Really?
>
>So, the stories of his exploits get told and re-told among his fans for
>decades before anyone decides it is worth writing them down, and
>you don't suppose that anyone exaggerated anything at all in all those
>re-tellings? Really?
>
>I guess it ultimately comes down to a judgment call of which seems more
>likely to you: God is born as a human, openly performs miracles, but
>nobody writes anything down until about 50 years later, and nothing gets
>exaggerated, OR: an otherwise unremarkable political activist attracts a
>bit of a following, but is eventually caught and executed. After his
>death, his followers tell each other tales of his exploits, embellishing
>them with each re-telling, until they are eventually put into writing.
>Those writings are then picked over by a group of people laying the
>foundation of a new religion, who select the tales that tell the story
>they want told. Centuries later, people think that the stories are a
>historically accurate account of real events, largely because they were
>taught to believe them since they were small children.

The latter is a rationalisation because there is no evidence
whatsoever, and the only sources are books theat re-tell earlier myths
and legends as well as describing events that never happened.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/5/2012 12:20 PM, sbalneav wrote:

> Calvin Ramsey wrote:

>> That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
>> book.
>
> He is, however, a scholar,

That's merely your biased opinion.

I would strongly disagree with it.

So would this person:

and this one:

"In reading Ehrman's textbook, it became quickly obvious that the genre
is New Testament criticism. Not criticism in exegetical terms, but
criticism in downgrading terms. Ehrman posits many positions of his own
by shrewdly engaging in verbal "gimicktry". His implicit comments
regarding aspects of Christianity when compared to Greco-Roman practices
are unfounded in fact. Like a courtroom lawyer, he makes statments that
can't be substantiated under cross. In one section of the text he
describes, Christian practices as rituals that have the same words
repeated over and over again in the same manner and that they have been
conducted in this way for centuries. The context being any Christian
celebration of significance, but clearly aimed at the Catholic Christian
Mass. Having made his comment about the duration of the same words
invoked for so long during similar celebrations, he leaves the reader
with an implied misdirected sense of purpose for the celebrations. He
never commits to the question, "Is this a good thing or a bad thing that
the same words have been used for centuries? Indeed one would wonder if
Ehrman would have his readers ask the question; "Is the existence of a
God, a good thing or a bad thing? His text would resound with his
answer, it doesn't matter. And since it apparently doesn't matter to
Ehrman, what ultimately is his point in writing this text. An
impressionable young student would be ripe for noncritical acceptance of
his interpretation of events in history. The text does not list specific
sources for his suppositions, but rather provides a litany of whole
books to read of the same genre. I doubt that this text would standup
under cross by other theologians like N.T. Wright. Wright's writings
counter modern historians methodologies of review of the ancient texts."

and this one:

"I am afraid that Ehrman is not an objective scholar. His self
publication in the media, as a reactionary sceptic, in reaction to his
former protestant (sola scriptura) fundamentalism means his work is
suspect at best.

Ehrman's origins as a naive fundamentalist were exploded at university
and this embittered him to the point that he became a biblical
iconoclast. This is not the foundation for sound scholarship. Ehrman's
academic blood is poisoned. Any academic work Ehrman produces has a
sceptical agenda which is either explicit or, in this case, implicit. My
advice, leave well alone and use the work of the more balanced and
objective."

> and I was addressing your claim that ALL scholars
> recognize them as eyewitness accounts.

That is not what I said.

Don't misinterpret me again.

> The *supernatural* bits were tagged on later by authors in the first century.

Are you prepared to provide proof for that assertion?

[sbalneav]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2012 12:20 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>>> That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
>>> book.
>>
>> He is, however, a scholar,
>
> That's merely your biased opinion.
>
> I would strongly disagree with it.

Well, as usual, you'd be wrong.

Here's the "Current Faculty" page at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill's web site:

http://religion.unc.edu/people/current-faculty

You'll notice he's the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor.

Since he is employed by a university, and is an accredited professor, and
writes scholarly articles, he is a...?

<snip crap>

>> and I was addressing your claim that ALL scholars
>> recognize them as eyewitness accounts.
>
> That is not what I said.
>
> Don't misinterpret me again.

Since you have, as per usual, dishonestly snipped the bit I was

addressing, allow me to remind you of what you said:

>>> But men (and women) who have studied the ancient texts all agree
>>> that the extant writings were written by eye-witnesses who were there,
>>> who heard Jesus say the words, and who later willingly died for
>>> their faith rather than recant what they wrote.

So, let's review, shall we?

Is Bart Ehrman a *man*? Well, he certainly appears to be.
Has he studied the ancient texts? Is he a Scholar? Well, scholar is one who
is defined by Mirriam Webster as:

schol·ar noun \??skä-l??r\

Definition of SCHOLAR

1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b : a learned person
3 : a holder of a scholarship

As a PhD, and an active professor, he certainly qualifies as a scholar. Since
his field of study is: New Testament interpretation; Apostolic Fathers; early
Christian apocrypha; orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity; New Testament
textual criticism, he will have read, certainly, the "ancient texts"

So, does your statement that *ALL* the men and women who have studied the
ancient texts agree that the extant writings WERE WRITTEN BY EYEWITNESSES WHO
WERE THERE? No, Bart Erhman, scholar, does not agree. You may not agree with
his analysis, but that's not the point. Your statement that they ALL agree is
incorrect.

I have interpreted you correctly and, as per usual, shown that you're talking
out your ass.

>> The *supernatural* bits were tagged on later by authors in the first century.
>
> Are you prepared to provide proof for that assertion?

Again, you snipped the bit where I stated it was part of the Documentary
*Hypothesis*. It's only a hypothesis, and as I stated, a possible explaination
as to how possible eyewitness accounts of "just a normal guy" Jesus turned into
"Son of God" Jesus.

Either way, the burden of proof isn't on me. I *don't believe* the bible
because of the fact that it's stories haven't met their burden of proof. It's
not my responsibility to provide iron-clad evidence that they're false. I may
offer an opinion as to how I think they might have come about, but that doesn't
change the fact that they have not made the story they purport to tell
convincing enough for me to believe it.

I see no evidence that the stories presented in the bible are true. You assert
that that's because I'm not allowed to see the truth, and that's fine, you're
welcome to expouse, and believe what you want. It doesn't change the fact that
the stories haven't met their philisophical burden of proof.

--
__ _ | No furniture so charming as books.
(_ |_) | -- Sydney Smith
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:

Oh, and I'd also like to challenge your statement in the subject line:

"There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for any other person in
the first five centuries."

I'd like to match Jesus up against this old Roman woman:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/23/roman-skeleton-sylvia-plath-cambridge

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/16933

See, I know she existed. I don't need eyewitness testimony, or indwelling
faith or any of that crap.

With her, we have her bones.

So, you wave your "eyewitness testimony" around. I'll whack it out of your
hand with a femur.

"Other unusual Roman finds include a pot considered so obscene by Victorian
excavators that it was not listed among the discoveries from the site in Great
Chesterford, Essex. The pot, believed to have been made near Peterborough,
shows naked women driving a carriage pulled by four penises, with phalluses
floating overhead."

Sounds like a frisky old so-and-so. Good on her, whoever she was. If she was
around today, imagine the Tupperware parties SHE'D put on!

So, I think your statement in the subject is full of crap too. I think bones
trump writing. Unless you've got Jesus' bones hiding about somewhere? I was
under the impression your book said he took them with him when he bodily
ascended to heaven.

But by all means, continue on making outlandish statements that you can't
possibly hope to back up, or are just plain wrong. I'm sure it's playing well
with the elect lurkers, and as you've stated, that's all you're really here for
anyway.

--
__ _ | Beware the barrenness of a busy life.
(_ |_) | -- Socrates
__)|_) |

[linuxgal]

Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:05:20 -0800, Father Haskell wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>>
>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>>> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>>> regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>> Evidence, please. A drunken debate doesn't count.
>
> I'd count the shear number of gospels discovered as some indication that
> there may well have been one or more real figures behind the myth.

Back in those days, everyone and his dog had a gospel. There were more
gospels than characters to assign as the authors of them, so they
started to bleed over into the bad guys. There's a gospel of Judas, and
a gospel of Pilate, to give two examples.

--
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:27:59 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:20:23 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:58:29 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>
> >> existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard
>
> >> theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
>
>
> Only fundie "scholars" with an axe to grind.
>
>
>
> But notice Bruno doesn't say who they are orand how they reach their
>
> "conclusion".
>
>
>
> And until he does that it remains just so much hot air.

It's in the wikipedia article, dumbass.See those little numbers?Read the fucking footnotes, ignorant jackass.DAMN, YOU ARE IGNORANT.

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:19:46 PM UTC-8, Constance Knoring wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:44094937-72be-44e9-a5d7-
>
> 20b4bb...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:04:00 AM UTC-8, Constance Knoring wrote:
>
> >> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> news:c896e374-b76a-475d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>
> >>
>
> >> > existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>
> >>
>
> >> > regard theories of his non-existence as effectively
>
> >>
>
> >> > refuted.[9][10][11]
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> bull fucking shit!!!!! you been wiping your fuckin ass with with with
>
> >>
>
> >> fucken wikipedeo pages you shit for braisn liar!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > YOu can't read, can ya jackass?I quoted someone else.DAMN,YOU ARE
>
> STUPID
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
> no , yore fucking stupid you fucking fucktard shitwad!!!!!!! you didnt
>
> quote proeplry and left out the fuckin footnotes ,

Here is the article, in case you can't find it yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_ref-11

DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID.

[Uirgil]

There are more references to any one of various Caesars from Julius
onward from a wide variety of independent sources than there are to your
Jesus. Not to mention statues of them and so on.

Even Jesus birth was biblically recorded as during one of the Ceasar's
reigns.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 02:02:33 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, and I'd also like to challenge your statement in the subject line:
>
>"There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for any other person in
>the first five centuries."

It's a ridiculously transparent lie that originated with one of the
piss-poor fundamentalist apologists (maybe Strobel or possibly
MacDowell), that the idiots in the rank and file who are incapable of
rational thought swallowed and stupidly repeat to people with more
than half a brain.

[Constance Knoring]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:1988554b-047e-4376...@googlegroups.com:

now why shood i ficking care to look at that fuckin article if yore only
gonna insult me you fucking goof?????? what the fuck is the matter with
you , did yore momma drop you on your head ( thats filled with shit from
local animals ) and leave you there to suffer and thats why yore so
fucking mad at evryone?????????

go piss up a fuckin rope you fucking louse!!!!!!!!!!

you prolly got beat up in school when u were a kid cuzz the otherr kidds
hated the bullshit you keep fucken spewing out of yer fuckin mouth and
thats why youre hidng on usenet where they cant reach out and punch you
in yore ugly fuckin face anymore!!!!!!

yore a gullible fucking religious fucktard and you have the gull to call
me stupid????? fuck you , get real you fucking cracker eating bum licking
shit for brains pisstard!!!!!!!! you supply no fuckin value here!!!!!!

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/5/2012 8:26 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 12:20 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>>> That's not exactly the type of review that would make me want to buy his
>>>> book.
>>>
>>> He is, however, a scholar,
>>
>> That's merely your biased opinion.
>>
>> I would strongly disagree with it.
>
> Well, as usual, you'd be wrong.
>
> Here's the "Current Faculty" page at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
> Hill's web site:
>
> http://religion.unc.edu/people/current-faculty
>
> You'll notice he's the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor.
>

> Since he is employed by a secular university, and is an accredited professor, and
> writes scholarly-looking articles, he is a...?

You left out a very important word. I corrected your error it for you.

You're welcome.

You thinking that because a person is employed by a secular state-funded
university, that automatically makes them a scholar is so ludicrous.

You'll assume anything as long as it makes your lie look acceptable.

<snip usual crap>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 11/5/2012 9:02 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, and I'd also like to challenge your statement in the subject line:
>
> "There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for any other person in
> the first five centuries."
>
> I'd like to match Jesus up against this old Roman woman:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/23/roman-skeleton-sylvia-plath-cambridge
>
> http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/16933

And because you think that "evidence" is only something that can be seen,
you reveal to the world how ignorant you are of the facts surrounding
evidence.

I need not say any more.

You are your own worst witness.

[sbalneav]

I knew you had nothing. Why do you even try?

--
__ _ | When I look upon men of science and philosophers, man is
(_ |_) | the wisest of all beings; when I look upon priests and
__)|_) | prophets nothing is as contemptible as man. -- Diogenes

[sbalneav]

Aaaaaaaaaaand I win again. Man, you're off your game.

--
__ _ | I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me
(_ |_) | as much as a week sometimes to make it up.
__)|_) | -- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:01:11 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 9:02 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, and I'd also like to challenge your statement in the subject line:

It was yet another of Ramsey's unsolicited, in-your-face lies about
something we wouldn't give a flying fuck about if believers kept it
inside their religion.

They seem to have a compulsion to be aggressively stupid.

>>> "There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for any other person in
>>> the first five centuries."
>>>
>>> I'd like to match Jesus up against this old Roman woman:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/23/roman-skeleton-sylvia-plath-cambridge
>>>
>>> http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/16933
>>
>> And because you think that "evidence" is only something that can be seen,
>> you reveal to the world how ignorant you are of the facts surrounding
>> evidence.

Lies noted.

But hey, it's Calvin doing what he does best.

He (or the religion that controls what passes for his mind) has
redefined not just "evidence" but a whole slew of other words.

At one level it carries the same feel/impact/feel etc as the original,
but at another it carries the new meaning.

>> I need not say any more.
>>
>> You are your own worst witness.
>
>Aaaaaaaaaaand I win again. Man, you're off your game.

There's something seriously wrong with him.

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:09:50 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 11:03 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
> >> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>
> >>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
> >>
>

> >>> There's a big difference between "Was there an Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering around preaching an apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL son of God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and performed miracles?"
>
> >>
>
> >>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can accept that, even if the only "real" evidence for it is the questionable Josephus quote. If people want to claim the latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.
>
> >>
>

> >> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.
>
> >>
>

> >> He himself claimed he would be crucified.
>
> >>
>
> >> He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.
>
> >>
>
> >> He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.
>
> >>
>
> >> He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.
>
> >
>
> > What evidence would this be, Calvin. Unaccepted quotes from your Bible
>
> > that was written by humans?
>
>
>
> It's not important that you know. It's only important for those interested
>
> in knowing the truth.
>
>
>
> >> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>
> >> other event in history.
>
> >
>
> > There is no evidence for this at all. You lose, Calvin. The Bible is not
>
> > evidence. It's just a bunch of books written by men and chosen in committee.
>
>
>
> You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
>
>
>
> I, and billions of others, know that you are wrong.

>
>
>
> >> God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
>
> >> a leg to stand on.
>
> >
>

> > I'll gladly list my sources. You lose again.
>
>
>
> I love it when you say I lose. That tells me that you know I'm going to
> win.
>
> <smirk>

Au contraire, Calvin. The fact that you continue to post long messages that you know aren't read shows how desperate you are. You know that you are wasting your time and merely being a silly annoyance. You really do lose - over and over and over... Tough luck, smirkles.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:09:50 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 11:03 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> >> On 11/4/2012 10:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>>
>> >>>> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,
>> >>>> [5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard
>> >>>> theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

Only in the dreams of believers who believe without evidence, and who
never provide any evidence.

They only way to refute "theories of his non-existence" would be to
provide the absent evidence that nobody has _ever_ provided.

Given that they have had almost 2000 years to provide it, and that
instead they resort to all sorts of fallacies as well as ad hominem
lies when you point out the obvious problems with what is supposed to
be the evidence, the conclusion that there is none is reinforced every
time they do this.

"Scholars think" is worthless unless and until their reasons are
given.

And just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so.

In courts it is cross-examined, which those offing it don't allow.

In science it is validated by those testing the work.

>> >>> There's a big difference between "Was there an
>> >>> Aramaic-speaking Jew wandering around preaching an
>> >>> apocalyptic message" and "Was this guy the ACTUAL
>> >>> son of God who actually ROSE FROM THE DEAD and
>> >>> performed miracles?"

Let alone the one describes in the Gospels even without the alleged
miracles.

The problem here is that it is a rationalisation - Yeshua was a common
name, but they still have to demonstrate this particular one.

>> >>> If people want to claim Jesus was the former? Sure, I can
>> >>> accept that, even if the only "real" evidence for it is the
>> >>> questionable Josephus quote. If people want to claim the
>> >>> latter, sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> >>> evidence.

But there isn't even evidence for the former.

>> >> Unfortunately for you, Jesus never left you with that choice.

What a fucking moron.

Once again rudely and stupidly presuming the very thing he's supposed
to be proving, as if he had already done so.

>> >> He himself claimed to be the Son of God.

Only according to Christian tradition - and you can't use that to
prove itself.

>> >> He himself claimed he would be crucified.

Only according to Christian tradition - and you can't use that to
prove itself.

>> >> He himself claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day.

Only according to Christian tradition - and you can't use that to
prove itself.

>> >> He himself claimed he would ascend back to the Father.

What fucking father was the question-begging moron rudely and stupidly
presuming, that he now has to prove as well?

But again only according to Christian tradition - and you can't use
that to prove itself.

>> >> He himself claimed he would return to earth to consummate history.

Only according to Christian tradition - and you can't use that to
prove itself.

>> > What evidence would this be, Calvin. Unaccepted quotes from your
>> > Bible that was written by humans?

He's just plain stupid.

>> It's not important that you know. It's only important for those interested
>> in knowing the truth.

Then why did the sociopath wipe his bullshit in our faces?

And why do these liars call their fairy stories "the truth" when they
are unable to prove them?

>> >> And there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than for any
>> >> other event in history.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

What does the moron imagine he achieves by a lie so transparent it
insults the intelligence of the listener that he uses it?

>> > There is no evidence for this at all. You lose, Calvin. The Bible is not
>> > evidence. It's just a bunch of books written by men and chosen in
>> > committee.

He's been brainwashed since childhood to "think" it is, that's what
singing "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" does
when it starts before they can even think.

>> You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Emotionally prejudicial falsehood. There is no belief involved. Just
zero, zip, zilch, nada reason to take his bullshit seriously.

>> I, and billions of others, know that you are wrong.

Lie note.

The liar knows no such thing, and has to lie like this because he
can't answer the obvious objections which wouldn't even be pointed out
if he kept his bullshit where it belongs.

But he can't, at which point he has to put up or shut up.

We all know he can't do the former, but he is psychologically
incapable of the latter.

>> >> God made sure you would not be able to make those claims and still have
>> >> a leg to stand on.

What fucking God was the question-begging moron rudely and stupidly
presuming as if he had already proven it?

>> > I'll gladly list my sources. You lose again.
>>
>> I love it when you say I lose. That tells me that you know I'm going to
>> win.

More lies noted.

>> <smirk>
>
>Au contraire, Calvin. The fact that you continue to post long messages
>that you know aren't read shows how desperate you are. You know that
>you are wasting your time and merely being a silly annoyance. You
>really do lose - over and over and over... Tough luck, smirkles.

It his way of showing that he can do it to a group he hates.

But he's not just a psychopath, he's a coward.

If he behaved like this towards the regulars in a bar, he would end up
in hospital.

If he were caught painting swastikas outside a Jewish home or burned
crosses outside black homes he would feel the force of criminal law
for his hate crime.

So instead he stalks and harasses the one minority so-called polite
society lets him do it to - through the anonymity of his computer.

[Budikka666]

Budikka writes:

> This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
>
> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
> existed,

No, he didn't. The name, moron, was Yeshua, or what we, today, would
term "Joshua". It never was Jesus. Anyone who prays to "Jesus" is as
irremediably stupid as you are.

> [5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
> regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You've proved one thing here: how abysmally gullible you are.

No one denies that there were scores of people living in the Middle East
2,000 or so years ago who were called Yeshua or Yeshu. It was a common
name. There were probably some who were rabbis. Josephus mentions
several Yeshuas.

What we dispute is that there was a miracle-working Yeshua bin Yusef (aka
Jesus Christ) who was the son of a god, and who was crucifed and
resurrected.

Get that right before you embarrass yourself further with your brain-dead
blabbering. And keep running you worthless pile of chickenshit.

Budikka

[Joe Bruno]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:08:26 PM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
> Budikka writes:
>
>
>
> > This is from the wikipedia article:"The Historicity of Jesus":
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>
> > existed,
>
>
>
> No, he didn't. The name, moron, was Yeshua, or what we, today, would
>
> term "Joshua". It never was Jesus. Anyone who prays to "Jesus" is as
>
> irremediably stupid as you are.

Fuck you and fuck your whole fucking family.

>
>
>
> > [5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>
> > regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]
>
>
>
> You've proved one thing here: how abysmally gullible you are.

Fuck you.

>
>
>
> No one denies that there were scores of people living in the Middle East
>
> 2,000 or so years ago who were called Yeshua or Yeshu. It was a common
>
> name. There were probably some who were rabbis. Josephus mentions
>
> several Yeshuas.
>
>
>
> What we dispute is that there was a miracle-working Yeshua bin Yusef (aka
>
> Jesus Christ) who was the son of a god, and who was crucifed and
>
> resurrected.

You can't read, asshole. The article I posted does not say anything beyond the
fact that Jesus existed. It does not endorse Christian theology.

YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ FUCKING ENGLISH.

YOU'RE A RETARDED MORON WHO CAN'T FUCKING READ.


DROP DEAD ASAP.


>
>
>