The Historical Jesus vs. the historical...?

[Bunyip]

Legion

You have conceded my position, the rest is just some kind of tantrum. I'm not wrong - you have agreed with me. At best what you are trying to do is to say that it is true but useless.

 

[Bunyip]

"Evidence" according to you? The obvious subjectivity here is ridiculous.

What do you mean?

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip has finally sorted out the spelling of Caesar after mangling it for months. I think congratulations is in order.

My sincere thanks to you for so graciously taking it upon yourself to be the spelling police. Well done.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

You have conceded my position, the rest is just some kind of tantrum. I'm not wrong - you have agreed with me. At best what you are trying to do is to say that it is true but useless.

Your position is that there is more evidence for the historical Jesus than for virtually every figure from antiquity? Because that is all I have conceded and expressed.

 

[Bunyip]

Your position is that there is more evidence for the historical Jesus than for virtually every figure from antiquity? Because that is all I have conceded and expressed.

There are hundreds of figures better evidenced than Jesus, you said so only a few hours ago. Now you are forgetting your own posts.

Do you need me to quote you for you? It was your post 112, hundreds you said - that is many.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are hundreds of figures better evidenced than Jesus, you said so only a few hours ago.

Perhaps your reading comprehension skills aren't particularly developed (is English your first language?). I said nothing of the sort other than that there are "hundreds of figures" from the 20th century for whom we have video evidence, photographic evidence, and all kinds of similar evidence available thanks to modern technology (which did not exist during Caesar's day). Those hundreds of figures I referred to make Julius Caesar more of a myth than Jesus. That was my point. Perhaps my references to the nature of evidence and scholarship confused you, as you confuse both. To clarify: Your ridiculous proposal that the evidence you quote-mine and otherwise garner from google for Julius Cesar from authors you haven't read in texts you are incapable of reading tells us nothing other than that you don't understand historical methods, are unfamiliar with historical research, and have to cherry-pick figures from the tiny number you've ever heard of to present as somehow the marks of "historical evidence" rather than that which they really are to you: the few names you are familiar with from antiquity and, having little to no knowledge of anything remotely relevant here, are names that children are familiar enough with to use Wikipedia as you have in order to present the pre-College arguments of those whose knowledge of history is limited to required courses prior to undergraduate studies.

Congratulations. You are capable enough to use google. When you are capable enough to presently evidence, scholarship, arguments, and a passing semblance of scholarly acumen, then let me know. It might actually be worth listening to your regurgitation of quote-mined nonsense you can't even consistently represent, let alone defend.

 

[Bunyip]

L

Perhaps your reading comprehension skills aren't particularly developed (is English your first language?). I said nothing of the sort other than that there are "hundreds of figures" from the 20th century for whom we have video evidence, photographic evidence, and all kinds of similar evidence available thanks to modern technology (which did not exist during Caesar's day). Those hundreds of figures I referred to make Julius Caesar more of a myth than Jesus. That was my point. Perhaps my references to the nature of evidence and scholarship confused you, as you confuse both. To clarify: Your ridiculous proposal that the evidence you quote-mine and otherwise garner from google for Julius Cesar from authors you haven't read in texts you are incapable of reading tells us nothing other than that you don't understand historical methods, are unfamiliar with historical research, and have to cherry-pick figures from the tiny number you've ever heard of to present as somehow the marks of "historical evidence" rather than that which they really are to you: the few names you are familiar with from antiquity and, having little to no knowledge of anything remotely relevant here, are names that children are familiar enough with to use Wikipedia as you have in order to present the pre-College arguments of those whose knowledge of history is limited to required courses prior to undergraduate studies.

Congratulations. You are capable enough to use google. When you are capable enough to presently evidence, scholarship, arguments, and a passing semblance of scholarly acumen, then let me know. It might actually be worth listening to your regurgitation of quote-mined nonsense you can't even consistently represent, let alone defend.

You are a bad loser buddy. Have an awesome weekend.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are a bad loser buddy. Have an awesome weekend.

When you can indicate you haven't lied about what I said or indicate that your knowledge of history isn't so faked (like your various conflicting lies of expertise), and can substantiate that I ever agreed with your nonsensical, uninformed bull****, then claim the above. Until then, continue to lie about your credentials, lie about your expertise, lie about your claims, and attack moderators when you are continually proved to be nothing more than a bully who runs crying to the refs when confronted by those who actually know something and don't rely on lying about their expertise as an expert espionage, "an historian", someone with a major in history, someone with a major in political science whose expertise is espionage, and other pathetic claims.


But please, continue to think that because you know three or four names from antiquity, picking Caesar and using Wikipedia evidence indicates you have any relevant knowledge here other than your lies.

 

[Bunyip]

When you can indicate you haven't lied about what I said or indicate that your knowledge of history isn't so faked (like your various conflicting lies of expertise), and can substantiate that I ever agreed with you nonsensical, uninformed bull****, then claim the above. Until then, continue to lie about your credentials, lie about your expertise, lie about your claims, and attack moderators when you are continually proved to be nothing more than a bully who runs crying to the refs when confronted by those who actually know something and don't rely on lying about their expertise as an expert espionage, "an historian", someone with a major in history, someone with a major in political science whose expertise is espionage, and other pathetic claims.


But pleas, continue to think that because you know three or four names from antiquity, picking Caesar and using Wikipedia evidence indicates you have any relevant knowledge here other than your lies.

All of those ad homs you have covered many times before. As I said, goodnight and have a lovely weekend.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of those ad homs you have covered many times before. As I said, goodnight and have a lovely weekend.

I haven't, actually. The totality of your dishonesty. your lies, your misrepresentations of my positions, your backtracking, your pretend claims that you switch at will, are but the beginning of the utter lack of intellectual integrity you exhibit in virtually every post before you run crying to moderators because you get your *** handed to you due to your utter ignorance and inability to equate disparate arguments or whine about ad hominem arguments you've spouted from the beginning. The only thing you rely on more than ad hominem and whining about the very attacks you dish out when they are returned is logical fallacies.

I have never agreed with the nonsense you spout, whether it is the vast intelligence network you posit the Roman emperors had based on distributers of corn and your expertise in whatever degree or specialty you happen to be lying about at the moment. Nor have I agreed about the fallacious analogies you've made concerning the few historical figures whose names you know and the evidence for which you could garner from Wikipedia.

You dish out ad hominem arguments left and right, but when they are returned you run to staff and assume the bereaved victim, only to regurgitate the illogical drivel you spout regularly.

"But keep your way in god's name. I have done"

 

[Bunyip]

I haven't, actually. The totality of your dishonesty. your lies, your misrepresentations of my positions, youe backtracking, your pretend claims that you switch at will, are but the beginning of the utter lack of intellectual integrity you exhibit in virtually every post before you run crying to moderators because you get your *** handed to you due to your utter ignorance and inability to equate disparate arguments or whine about ad hominem arguments you've spouted from the beginning. The only thing you rely on more than ad hominem and whining about the very attacks you dish out when they are returned is logical fallacies.

I have never agreed with the nonsense you spout, whether it is the vast intelligence network you posit the Roman emperors had based on distributers of corn and your expertise in whatever degree or specialty you happen to be lying about at the moment. Nor have I agreed about the fallacious analogies you've made concerning the few historical figures whose names you know and the evidence for which you could garner from Wikipedia.

You dish out ad hominem arguments left and right, but when they are returned you run to staff and assume the bereaved victim, only to regurgitate the illogical drivel you spout regularly.

"But keep your way in god's name. I have done"

Thanks for that. A post that was entirely ad hominem attack. I'll leave you to it, I need not defend myself against them, nor do I need to reduce myself to that level.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for that.

You are most welcome.

 

[Prophet]

My sincere thanks to you for so graciously taking it upon yourself to be the spelling police. Well done.

This hypocrite seems to have forgotten that he took it upon himself to play grammar police not two pages earlier.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for that. A post that was entirely ad hominem attack. I'll leave you to it, i need not defend myself against them.

As long as we are dealing with antiquity, "ad hominem attack" is singular. So it would be "I need not defend myself against it" not "them". Plural would be ad homines.

 

[Prophet]

Thanks for that. A post that was entirely ad hominem attack. I'll leave you to it, I need not defend myself against them, nor do I need to reduce myself to that level.

Of course a hypocrite like Bunyip would not need to REDUCE himself to a level he started at. I just called him a "goddamned imbecile" directly, and I absolutely assume he reported me. As it stands, mods have not talked to me about Bunyip for months, and I don't expect that to change now in spite of my blatant insult. Why? Because this goddamned imbecile has cried wolf a hundred or so too many times. Every time that little whining ***** reports, moderators have had to look at his interactions in depth, invariably seeing that the ****ty treatment Bunyip has received has always mirrored the ****ty treatment Bunyip has given.

 

[Bunyip]

As long as we are dealing with antiquity, "ad hominem attack" is singular. So it would be "I need not defend myself against it" not "them". Plural would be ad homines.

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course a hypocrite like Bunyip would not need to REDUCE himself to a level he started at. I just called him a "goddamned imbecile" directly, and I absolutely assume he reported me. As it stands, mods have not talked to me about Bunyip for months, and I don't expect that to change now in spite of my blatant insult. Why? Because this goddamned imbecile has cried wolf a hundred or so too many times. Every time that little whining ***** reports, moderators have had to look at his interactions in depth, invariably seeing that the ****ty treatment Bunyip has received has always mirrored the ****ty treatment Bunyip has given.

I can not imagine how you could have exposed the weakness of your own position more effectively than you did in that post.

 

[Prophet]

I can not imagine how you could have exposed the weakness of your own position more effectively than you did in that post.

Imbeciles often lack imagination along with their intelligence deficit.

 

[Iti oj]

MOD POST
Please remember to follow the rules while posting.
I have noticed a lot of rules broken in this thread.
So I am posting the rules for your reminder.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

2. Discussion of Moderation
There must be no discussion of the moderation of posts or members on the forums. In all cases of dispute, members are to first attempt dialogue with RF staff by creating a thread in the Site Feedback section. To ensure the privacy of such matters, all threads in Site Feedback will only be visible by the member who created the thread, and the staff. Site Feedback discussions are considered part of moderation between members and staff, and may not be discussed in the forums. Final appeals will be decided by an administrator. General issues and concerns about moderation can also be directed to site feedback.

In addition, members whose posts were acted upon (either edited or deleted), may not re-post the post or thread anywhere on the forum without staff's permission. Members who ignore moderation after a reasonable amount of time, through PM or otherwise, will incur further action, such as restriction of the account.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."


11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

​

 

[Iti oj]

Thread closed for staff review.