Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,908 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7908 Comments

  1. dweller Said:

    JOSEPHUS , SUETONIUS and TACITUS

    There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

    your revisionist associates at work and you carry on their tradition with your intentional efforts to hide the truth.

    The only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament,
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303091/Jesus-Christ/222994/Sources-for-the-life-of-Jesus

    All of your tangents about your nitzris “brilliant sayings’, what is a christian source, who is a christian, etc etc etc are simply attempts to deflect attention from that one thing which YOU never confront:

    there are no Jewish sources which support or attest to the existence of Jesus, his disciples, his virgin birth, his ressurection, his Jewish messiahship, his second coming

    therefore your beilief in your nitzri is based on your INTUITION plus:
    bernard ross Said:

    Just like I said, you find it more likely that the Jews hid the secret of your messiah and prefer to believe those who have been swindling, libeling, torturing, slaughtering Jews for 2000 years…. those who spent centuries trying to kill the witnesses, burn their books, rewrite their narratives, twist the jewish scriptures in order to preserve their myths..like the existence, virgin birth, resurrection, replacement theology…etc etc etc.
    “birds of a feather flock together”
    no need for all your long stories, You choose to believe the jew killers rather than the Jews.

    its really that simple. You lead the forum in circles, piling on irrelevant tangents and mountains of obfuscating irrelevant garbage, in the hope everyone forgets the simple obvious point.

  2. dweller Said:

    dweller Said:

    When have I said that? You’re clearly wrong again. Actually, I’m just about the only regular poster here who insists that I am NOT a ‘Christian.’

    obviously Mar55 antennae are clearer than yours
    dweller Said:

    But then, I know the actual definition of the word, while the others use it only as an epithet.

    Chris·tiannoun
    noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians
    1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=christian%20definition
    adjective
    1. of, relating to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings….
    noun
    7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ;….
    …A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
    2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

    our resident psychobabbling beleiver in the existence of his nitzri, the resurection of his nitzri, the messiahship of his nitzri,the virgin birth of his nitzri,… appears to walk talk and quack like a duck in spite of his professing to be a chicken.

  3. dweller Said:

    “Like a child…”

    A child is often closer to truth (less cluttered, as yet, w/ the world’s BS) than his/her elders. He may not be able to express himself very effectively about it, but he does sense the ugly reality that others have learned to obliterate from their waking consciousness.

    “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.”
    1 Corinthians 13:11
    😛

  4. @ yamit82:

    “He just did it again on the ‘yellow star’ forum.”

    “Made several comments there, not just one. You [BR] had the same opportunity as I. And lots more time available to you. Sounds like sour grapes. I repeat: Your problem is ENVY.”

    “Envy??…Get something straight. It’s you and no one else who is so sick that he is conscious of when the time runs out on any thread not me.”

    My comment [blockquoted above] was directed to Ross, not you. It was included in a post which replied to yours, which had asserted ‘petulance’ — however, my remark was about BR, who certainly DOES have a thing about getting in the last word. That’s precisely WHY he checked the ‘Yellow star’ forum after it had expired. He was indeed being a petulant cry-baby in bringing up the matter in the first place.

    Nonetheless, you do have a thing about envy (just as he does), albeit of a different sort.

    “Everything you do is a fetish, a calculation, that feeds your own personal insane quest for one-upsmanship.”

    Not bad, as self-descriptions go. Not bad at all.

    “Getting in the final word is only important to you none else.”

    That’s one department around here where everyone else disagrees with YOU. You show me somebody who doesn’t wanna be last man standing, and I’ll show you a bull with tits.

    “Like a child…”

    A child is often closer to truth (less cluttered, as yet, w/ the world’s BS) than his/her elders. He may not be able to express himself very effectively about it, but he does sense the ugly reality that others have learned to obliterate from their waking consciousness.

    “… you hurl back same critical verbiage against you back at those who hurl them at you… “

    WTF would you like for me to do w/ what is unmistakably sheer projection? — Take it for — (you-should-excuse-the-expression:) G o s p e l ?

    “You are trying to defend a crazy fetish where nobody but you cares and nobody but you is even cognizant of when threads expire.”

    If you really believe that, then you’re slower on the uptake, even, than Ross, because he ABSOLUTELY cares, and knows damned well when threads are set to expire — but he simply assumes that you know when they expire too, and that you’re just covering for him with this load of shuck.

    “Your lame defense…”

    That was no defense; that was a counterattack, a riposte — and if you think it was ‘lame,’ you’ve yet to state what’s ‘lame’ ABOUT it.

    “Huff’n’puff most assuredly DOES run a clique around here. It’s composed of those who are uncertain of their “Jewishness” in one way or another, or (as in your own case) uncertain of their relationship to the Jews.

    — They all rely on Huffy to validate them, and he is only too happy to comply… in return for their running interference for him when he’s in over his head, or piling-on in his behalf when he’s bullying somebody.”

    “Case closed…”

    Indeed, it certainly IS closed — yet you keep trying to reopen it.

    “… unless you feel a compulsion (OCD)”

    More psychobabble from a babbling psycho. Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. . . .

  5. @ yamit82:

    “Why [dweller] re-posted mar55’s comment from some 6 weeks ago with the same ans or some facsimile of his ans then NOW and Here????”

    You asked the wrong person; no way BR would know.

    If you’d asked ME — instead of making an ass of yourself this way — I could’ve told you.

    Mar’s comment was NOT from “6 wks ago.” Her comment was posted Dec 12, less than 3 wks ago.

    My response appears only ONCE, not twice, in the posting record. However, it went into moderation and remained there for a long time.

    “I wonder if he re-posted it entirely from memory as he claims to do?

    When have I ever claimed to memorize whole posts verbatim? Show me the text of the specific item where I supposedly said that.

    And then go soak your head.

  6. @ bernard ross:
    @ dweller:

    Bernard can you figure out why your friend here re-posted mar55’s comment from some 6 weeks ago with the same ans or some facsimile of his ans then NOW and Here????

    I wonder if he re-posted it entirely from memory as he claims to do?

  7. @ bernard ross:

    “christianity has spent 2000 years revising and discrediting the Jews and their bible.”

    “Christianity” hasn’t even been around for “2000 years” — and to whatever extent it has ‘revised’ or ‘discredited’ the Jews & the Bible is strictly hearsay (and hearsay at least twice removed) coming from somebody who, like yourself, lacks the intellectual integrity (to say nothing of courage) to even so much as read the basic texts for himself.

    “Your choice of sources makes your claims suspect at the very least.”

    Your refusal to review for yourself any of the relevant primary or original sources makes your OWN claims far more suspect than mine.

    @ bernard ross:

    “There is simply no way that the sayings of Jesus were devised by Philo, or Josephus, or the Herods, or the Alexanders, or the Flavians. Read anything written by any of those folks, and then read the sayings of haNitzri; see for yourself.”

    “there is no way of saying that Jesus ever existed according to christian narratives.”

    The Jewish community does not doubt the Jewish authorship of NT. So your characterizing the gospels as strictly ‘christian’ narratives is disingenuous at best.

    “Nor is the Jesus who took a cat-of-nine-tails to the money-changers in the Temple (an institution which by that time had become a tax-collecting agency for Rome) by any stretch of the imagination a ‘pacifist’ or otherwise ‘gentle’ person.”

    “This is what happens when you start to believe that the myths are true.”

    Again, you beg the question. You have yet to establish that the gospel account constitutes ‘myth.’

    “Literary critics discuss the behaviors of characters like Odysseus with the same zeal.”

    Take it up w/ Joseph Atwill. It was HE who (quite zealously) characterizes the Jesus of the gospels as “gentle” and “pacifistic.” The comment of mine which you referenced merely challenged Atwill’s characterization.

    “concepts that came directly from prior Hebraic literature.”

    “christianity has based itself on its version of the Hebrew bible. therefore, they had extensive material to crib in formulating their narratives and assigning the narratives to mythological figures.”

    This is silly nonsense Gentiles wouldn’t have had the capability to systematically ‘crib.’

  8. @ bernard ross:

    ” Your criteria for accepting the myths of the NT appears to be based upon some pretty sayings…”

    “Didn’t say there was anything ‘pretty’ ABOUT them. You keep returning to that characterization of what I said and trying to lay it on me. Won’t stick, because it’s NOT what I said. Nor have you established them to be ‘myths,’ except insofar as it obviously comforts you to tell yourself they’re ‘myths’ — ‘myths’ which you’ve never actually read for yourself.

    I said not that they were ‘pretty’ but that they were BRILLIANT. (They are.)”

    “the supposed brilliance of haNitzri’s sayings has absolutely not one shred of relevance to the facts of his existence.”

    Nonsense. They bear witness to the existence of WHOEVER it was that said them, somebody clearly in a class by himself — and one, moreover, of 1st century Jewish background. You can’t get around that, no matter how much you wiggle & squirm.

    ” many mythological characters have made brilliant sayings.”

    Oh? — show us a few, by way of comparison.

    “You blather over trivia & externalities, because substance scares the PANTS off of you — so much so that you dare not even read the friggin’ document for yourself.”

    “I have no need to read fairy tales.”

    You DO need to read the relevant material to establish that they ARE ‘fairy tales.’ Otherwise, you identify yourself as a know-nothing and an intellectual bigot.

    “there are no jewish sources attesting to the existence of the jew you call Jesus or his disciples, his virgin birth, his resurrection, his second coming, etc.”

    Define “Jewish source” as you use the term.

    Is JOSEPHUS Jewish enough for you?

    “I see no secular sources.”

    So, SUETONIUS and TACITUS aren’t “secular sources?”

    “The only attestations of his existence is from the NT and other christian sources.”

    In the face of many requests you continue to refuse to define “Christian source” as you use the term.

    — Why should anybody take you seriously?

    “All you beating around the bush does not change the simple facts.”

    WHAT “beating around the bush”???

    As long as you refuse to read the pertinent materials, you are clearly disinterested in discovering the simple facts.

    “If you do not know what christian sources, or Christianity are on this issue…”

    Where have I said I didn’t know what christian sources are on this issue?

    What I have done is asked you to define YOUR USE of the term “christian sources” and you continue to sidestep the question.

    “I do not need to read the NT to arrive at conclusions regarding the credibility of christianity wrt Jews.”

    The Jewish community disagrees with you. There is no serious doubt within the broader Jewish community that NT was the work of 1st century Jews. The only questions within the community are over the significance of NT, not over its Jewish authorship.

    “So far the only basis you cite for your narratives of jesus is your intuition and the brilliance of some sayings which are assigned to persons unknown.”

    Not ‘persons’ — person; singular. No way those sayings were concocted — and if they weren’t concocted, what does that leave you?

  9. dweller Said:

    There is simply no way that the sayings of Jesus were devised by Philo, or Josephus, or the Herods, or the Alexanders, or the Flavians. Read anything written by any of those folks, and then read the sayings of haNitzri; see for yourself.

    there is no way of saying that Jesus ever existed according to christian narratives.
    dweller Said:

    Nor is the Jesus who took a cat-of-nine-tails to the money-changers in the Temple (an institution which by that time had become a tax-collecting agency for Rome) by any stretch of the imagination a ‘pacifist’ or otherwise ‘gentle’ person.

    This is what happens when you start to believe that the myths are true. Literary critics discuss the behaviors of characters like Odysseus with the same zeal. Those who watch sop operas also begin to beleive in the existence of the characters in the real world. A character in a novel is as consistent as his author directs.

  10. dweller Said:

    “concepts that came directly from prior Hebraic literature.”

    DUH??? christianity has based itself on its version of the Hebrew bible. therefore, they had extensive material to crib in formulating their narratives and assigning the narratives to mythological figures. Since they are the only support for the existence of these figures, and the narratives, it becomes obvious that their historical record wrt the Hebrew bible and jews makes their narratives immediately suspect. Jesus, the disciples, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the second coming, etc have no Jewish attestation for their existence. christianity has spent 2000 years revising and discrediting the Jews and their bible. Your choice of sources makes your claims suspect at the very least.

  11. dweller Said:

    I said not that they were ‘pretty’ but that they were BRILLIANT. (They are.)

    the supposed brilliance of your nitzris sayings has absolutely not one shred of relevance to the facts of his existence. many mythological characters have made brilliant sayings.
    dweller Said:

    substance scares the PANTS off of you — so much so that you dare not even read the friggin’ document for yourself.

    Aside from the bit of ludicrous psychobabble you inseterted here, I suppose the friggin document you refer to is the NT. I have no need to read fairy tales. It still stands that there are no jewish sources attesting to the existence of the “jew” you call Jesus or his disciples, his virgin birth, his resurrection, his second coming, etc. Perhaps you can cite them, also I see no secular sources. The only attestations of his existence is from the NT and other christian sources. All you beating around the bush does not change the simple facts.
    Show me the jewish sources that attest to the existence of JC and his disciples.
    I have already told you that I cannot assign any credibility to Christianity on this issue. If you do not know what christian sources, or Christianity are on this issue then go through the last 2000 years of swindling,libeling, torturing and slaughtering of jews and I will wager that even you might stumble upon some christian perpetration. also, look around today at the BDS churches. Your continued attempts to make simple issues complex is an indication of your continued need to claim that defend a mythology.
    I do not need to read Mein Kampf to arrive at conclusions regarding the credibility of AH wrt jews. I do not need to read the NT to arrive at conclusions regarding the credibility of christianity wrt Jews. So far the only basis you cite for your narratives of jesus is your intuition and the brilliance of some sayings which are assigned to persons unknown. If you remove the christian narrative there appears to be nothing but some sayings from persons unknown.

  12. mrg3105 Said:

    Your few replies are replete with cliches, which tells me something about you already.

    1-Point out the “cliches” of which you accuse me.
    2-this is one more example of YOU attempting to deflect attention from the issue under discussion to a red herring.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Desensitisation due to the sort of ‘discussion’ I saw going on earlier has made you very cynical, which is a sort of a trauma, though I’m not espousing what you call ‘psychobubble’.

    Your ludicrous unsupported psychobabbling assertion made without a single shred of evicdence or support but in an MO of sidestepping your pathetic ad hominem red herring.
    bernard ross Said:

    psychobabble: 1. writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance.

    Your irrelevant, fallacious and childish reply:
    mrg3105 Said:

    Part of my university education was in developmental psychology, and for work reasons I remain very interested in organisational psychology,

    Sorry to inform you that even a globally recognized expert in psychology would still be required by his peers to support his diagnoses with supporting facts. I also had some psychology courses in college and courses in basic logic. My logic courses allowed me to recognize your fallacious arguments which NEVER addressed the issue but always sought to deflect attention to Me. My basic courses in general psychology allowed me to recognize that your serial MO to “supporting” your assertions pointed to a psychological mechanism, likely of defense against the exposure of the emptiness of your unsupported assertions, regardless of the subject matter.
    mrg3105 Said:

    A very good friend of mine is however a practicing trauma councillor,….. We talk about trauma

    Perhaps that is why you immediately grasped for the word “trauma” in this ludicrous, unsupported psychobabble you just posted wrt ME! You might be surprised to find out that one does not acquire specialized psychological knowledge merely by discussing trauma with, or being in the proximity of, a “practicing trauma councilor”. your reply is irrelevant to supporting your assertion, as usual.
    I expect that you were a D student in college in your psychology courses as you cannot even recognize your own MO.

    mrg3105 Said:

    I remain very interested in organisational psychology particularly as it pertains to project management, design and innovation.

    Although irrelevant to explaining your lack pf providing support for your assertions, since you are interested in playing “show and tell”, I have more than a passing interest. for the past 45 years I have been an architect, project manager, contractor, Developer in multiple venues in the US, caribbean and central America. I have also as side qualifications been licensed as real estate broker, mortgage broker, and various management licenses also in various nations. The projects have been in real estate, business and tourism, etc. I have also been an owner and operator of various restaurants and clubs in my younger years. I still consult on an informal basis. In the real world of business and organizations you must learn how to provide evidence and support for the assertions you make, without that you will be unsuccessful. Also, if you seek leadership roles I suggest you abandon your repetitive MO as follows:

    …blaming tactics involved putting the spotlight on somebody else for an unfavorable result or situation in order to deflect attention from oneself.
    Business psychology and Organizational Behavior: A students handbook by Eugene F. Mckenna – Pg. 404

    Perhaps you got your inspiration for your MO from your organizational studies?
    The bottom line is that you continue to seek to deflect attention from your own shortcomings and inability to support your assertions by employing red herrings, ad hominem and irrelevance.

    mrg3105 Said:

    Bernard, sometimes you need to know when to suspend your disbelief, and just listen. Most people aren’t interested in asking questions or listening, and I’m looking for a few that are.

    pure hot air: I listened attentively to your assertions and directed very specific questions and requests for support to you. I paid more attention and listening to your posts than you did. You are merely seeking a pulpit for the dissemination of your belief system without offering any support for your assertions. It is likely that you have operated in an environment which requires no critical thinking and applies no criteria for the evaluation of the credibility of your declarations.
    mrg3105 Said:

    You will get nothing more from me……
    I am very secure in who I am, and what I’m trying to achieve. Everything else is ‘noise’. I have learned to tune it out.

    I got nothing to date so I never expected anything “more”. Those in denial often feel “very secure in who” they are. Tuning out the “noise” is the mechanism used to support the denial. I suggest you discuss this with a real psychologist.

    yamit82 Said:

    you can easily supply if you know it, and if you can show where my reply is incorrect and yours is correct.

    mrg3105 Said:

    If you are not up for the challenge, just give it a rest with all the cut-and-paste of the verses. You only lower yourself to the level of other literalists.

    apparently I am not the only one with whom you operate that MO.

  13. @ mar55:

    “There are some poster in this blog who have been posting very long posts daily.”

    My replies are usually quite succinct. However, for continuity & clarity I incorporate the series of remarks that I am responding to. It isn’t my own remarks that extend a post’s length. In fact, other posters make MUCH longer remarks than I.

    ” An insidious character who instead of dialogs keep insulting anyone who post some truth about him.”

    Oh, I see. When somebody comments about me, it’s “some truth.” But if I make a comment ABOUT that ‘truth,’ then that’s an ‘insult.’ (Just getting the lay of the land here; very droll.)

    “He does not debate he goes on, and on, and on forever.”

    As long as the attacks go on and on, the defenses will go on and on.

    When the attacks stop, the defenses will stop.

    Not unless. Not until.

    THEN the ‘debate’ can begin. Won’t that be nice?

    “Makes a nuisance out of himself and takes the time other people will have to discuss Israel and more pleasant topics than himself, answering him.”

    It doesn’t occur to you, does it, that answering attacks (like yours, for example) is a nuisance to ME — and that it takes the time that I would otherwise have to discuss Israel as well.

    “Negative attention is better than NO attention at all.”

    Not for everybody. You speak only for yourself in this regard. You’re quite welcome to ignore me; no problem whatsoever.

    “He says that he is a Christian…”

    When have I said that? You’re clearly wrong again. Actually, I’m just about the only regular poster here who insists that I am NOT a ‘Christian.’

    But then, I know the actual definition of the word, while the others use it only as an epithet.

    “…but, is so self centered, so self absorbed that thinks only his distorted views of reality are valid.”

    I’m always happy to have my opinions disputed, but I won’t tolerate personal assaults for the mere fact of my HOLDING those views. As for measuring self-centeredness & self-absorption: compared with the primary elements of this lynch mob, I’m not even on the charts.

    “Anyone who disagree with him is likely to get insulted with his diatribes.”

    Bilge. I never insult because of mere disagreement. When I deliberately insult it’s usually a direct response to rudeness.

    “The result of taking acid in his youth or something else.”

    Is that what makes YOU such a hypocrite? — dropping acid in your youth?

    Or do the residual effects of the acid merely render your present-day hypocrisy all-the-more transparent?

  14. @ honeybee:

    “Is that all you’ve got left?”

    “I have gotten every thing right !!!!”

    The question wasn’t put to you — but to the turkey you run interference for.

    “Oh Sweetie, there is so much more to Yamit82 to be plumbed.”

    “In that case, perhaps you should call a proctologist to visit him.”

    “Why, whenever you are pushed into a corner…”

    Have never been pushed into a corner on this blogsite. You must be thinking of someone else.

    “why… do you resort to scatological language ?”

    Must be something about the subject matter that inspires me.

    When did proctologist become “scatological language”?

    @ yamit82:

    “[Dweller] is a world leading expert from hands-on practice of coprology. Then he is anal retentive.”

    Perhaps you should tell that to the proctologist when he comes to. . . plumb you. That way he can compare notes with me afterward. I may be able to give him some ‘pointers’ on why you’re so full of what he finds in there.

  15. dweller Said:

    Is that all you’ve got left?”

    I have gotten every thing right !!!!

    dweller Said:

    In that case, perhaps you should call a proctologist to visit him.

    Why, whenever you are “pushed into a corner do you resort to scatological language ?

  16. @ yamit82:

    Caesar’s Messiah.”

    Okay, I found a place where I could watch your flick — which turns out to be a leftist -Enviro-wacko workup constituting as much a concoction as the one it purports to debunk. It never addresses the actual SAYINGS of Jesus, but merely claims that the Gospels are the work of the Flavians. Weak, thin, shallow.

    There is simply no way that the sayings of Jesus were devised by Philo, or Josephus, or the Herods, or the Alexanders, or the Flavians. Read anything written by any of those folks, and then read the sayings of haNitzri; see for yourself.

    Nor is the Jesus who took a cat-of-nine-tails to the money-changers in the Temple (an institution which by that time had become a tax-collecting agency for Rome) by any stretch of the imagination a ‘pacifist’ or otherwise ‘gentle’ person.

    The one thing Atwill gets right is his grudging acknowledgement (altho only in passing) that the remarks of haNitzri incorporate “concepts that came directly from prior Hebraic literature.”

    There’s more to be said, but I don’t have time to say it. Instead I’ll offer you this:

    “Caesar’s Messiah was a book published by a dot com businessman named Joseph Atwill in 2005. Last year, he released a documentary based on the book and everyone is talking about it all of a sudden, because Atwill put out the world’s most misleading press release for his film screening in London. Richard Dawkins then retweeted the press release, even though he said he didn’t endorse the theory, and now this eight-year-old theory is news again. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

    Titus – The inventor of Jesus according to Atwill

    The basic premise of Caesar’s Messiah is that the Roman Imperial family, the Flavians, invented Jesus by using the Jewish historian Josephus and, presumably, other people to write the gospels after Rome defeated the Jews in 70 AD. The idea was to make the militant Jewish rebels accept a peaceful Messiah and, thereby, give Rome less trouble.

    Atwill says that the New Testament was written in a code that requires you to read Josephus’ War of the Jews alongside the New Testament to get the joke. He, of course, is the only person to crack this code, making him super smart.

    The following are just some of the major problems with this theory. For footnotes and references to the claims I’m about to make, go to the link in the description or to the website ceasarsmessiahdebunked.com.

    One of the biggest problems this theory has is the existence of Christianity before 73 AD, when Atwill says that the idea was concocted by the Romans. Quite simply, if Christianity can be demonstrated to exist before that time, this theory is toast.

    The famous historian Tacitus says that Nero was persecuting Christians in Rome in 64 AD. He also mentions that ‘immense multitudes’ of Christians were living in Rome at the time. Try to figure out why ‘immense multitudes’ of Christians are in Rome ten years before Christianity was supposed to have been invented.

    Suetonius also mentions Nero punishing Christians, as well as many Christian historians. That seems like a bad PR idea to write this kind of stuff: ‘Hey, everyone! Join the new religion so we can burn you alive and feed you to lions. The signup sheet is right over there.’

    Paul, who tradition has being killed by Nero around 66 AD, wrote thirteen of the letters in the New Testament, all of them very Christian. Even the most skeptical scholars in this field don’t date these letters later than 68 AD, and most of them much earlier than that. You should find out why even these skeptical scholars feel the need to place these letters so early, which you can do at the website caesarsmessiahdebunked.com.”

    There’s MORE of this discussion as well at that same location.

  17. @ honeybee:

    “Is that all you’ve got left?”

    “Oh Sweetie, there is so much more to Yamit82 to be plumbed.”

    In that case, perhaps you should call a proctologist to visit him.

    “You should be quite weak with anticipation.”

    No doubt that when Huff’n’puff hears who’s coming to see him (and why), HE’ll be weak with anticipation.

  18. mrg3105 Said:

    I have already said that I am a Yehudi. Take it or leave it.
    You said you are ‘Jewish’. Prove it.

    PLEASE mrg3105,,, there are Ladies present. Of course, if Bernard is anything like his posts ??????

  19. mrg3105 Said:

    Bernard, I don’t do ‘chit chat’

    Dear mrg3105, I have read all of your post with great care and you are much to humble. You do “chit-chat” very well, in fact your are the accomplished “chit-chatter” on the Pundit.

  20. @ bernard ross:

    “how do you jump to a ‘Jewish messiah’, born of a union between the G_D of the jews and a virgin, who died, was resurrected, and is coming back again to finish his undone job. All your posts give no support outside of christian sources for the existence and narrative of Jesus and his disciples.”

    SEVERAL of my posts, however, have pointedly & explicitly asked you to define your use of the term, “christian sources” — and your SILENCE, by way of response, has been, thus far, nothing short of deafening, despite your continued use of the term.

    How am I to reply to any comment of yours CONTAINING the expression as long as it remains undefined by the party which introduced it, notwithstanding multiple requests for a definition?

    “It comes back to this:
    You have decided to take your information from the culture associated with the serial, chronic, libeling, swindling, torture and slaughter of Jews for 2000 years and still ongoing today. “

    Nonsense. It comes to nothing of the kind

    — as I have done nothing of the sort.

    But by systematically refusing to define an important term you introduced — and which you CONTINUE to use here despite its undefined character here — you have effectively sealed yourself off from any possibility of real discourse in the matter.

    “Perhaps you can describe your epiphanies to the posters here so they can evaluate your claims based upon the quality of your source, I have no doubt they will be interested.”

    Right after you define your term, “christian sources” — so the readers here (not merely the posters) can evaluate YOUR claims based on the sincerity of those CLAIMS’ ‘source.’

    “…those lustrous, luminescent, brilliant sayings of [Yeshua haNitzri, Jesus of Nazareth] ….. can only have been the utterances of a single individual…”

    “Perhaps it was santa claus or rapunzel, or Zeus?”

    Coulda been called Roger Rabbit, for all I care; what’s in a name? “Montague”? “Capulet”? A collection of sounds.

    — “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

    You blather over trivia & externalities, because substance scares the PANTS off of you — so much so that you dare not even read the friggin’ document for yourself.

    The bigots have truly succeeded in making you one of them.

  21. @ bernard ross:

    “i don’t trust the christian churches on this subject [viz., Jewish authorship of NT] but you are quite satisfied.”

    “You don’t know that what you call ‘Christian sources’ consist exclusively of christian churches. Some are simply independent scholars who specialize in matters relating to Christianity.

    It does not follow that they are necessarily connected with some church, or even have some prior intellectual interest in the outcome of their researches.”

    “In any case, if you think it all hinges on whether there is external evidence to corroborate the existence of Christ, I’ll take up that matter immediately after YOU provide ME evidence of the existence of Eliyahu haNavi. (Surely that’s fair, isn’t it?)

    “At least in the case of haNitzri, there are his sayings. No way they were written by a committee of Byzantine or Roman hacks. If you can’t see something very special, indeed extraordinarily brilliant, in the Sermon on the Mount…”

    “a pretty story is your support for the existence of someone?”

    “Pretty STORY”? — I said nothing of the NARRATIVE. I clearly referenced the SAYINGS specifically, the remarks, the Sermon on the Mount, etc — the internal unity & coherence of them, the fact that they couldn’t have been concocted & assembled ‘by committee.’ One needn’t be a literary expert to realize this

    — only an interested seeker with an open mind.”

    “this is irrelevant, the existence of literary tracts,nor their literary quality, DOES NOT prove the existence of [Jesus of Nazareth]”

    “It’s not the least bit ‘irrelevant,’ but very much to the point. Once again, however, you completely (and I do mean COMPLETELY) miss the point. One would’ve thought you could put it together for yourself. No such luck. So, okay, we’ll plod:

    It’s not about tracts. It’s not about literary quality. It’s not in any way an issue of aesthetics. Got that? It’s about examining & comparing texts for reliability & authenticity. And to THAT end, literary examination has value.

    Repeat: looking at the sayings from a literary perspective is not an end in itelf but a means of discovering its likely PROVENANCE — just as looking at Obama’s first ‘bio,’ Dreams From My Father, from a literary perspective was not an end in itself either. It showed that he very likely was NOT its actual author, and that Bill Ayres very probably was.

    To say that those lustrous, luminescent, brilliant sayings of haNitzri are NOT the work of a ‘committee’ is another way of stating that they can only have been the utterances of a single individual — and reading those sayings leaves no doubt that WHOEVER that single individual was would’ve had to be a very special individual, and most definitely one with a first century Jewish background; no way around that. You don’t just make that stuff up, out of whole cloth, like a novel.”

    “Actually you do just make that stuff up like a novel.”

    You think YOU could, Yahnkel?

    — despite the fact that you don’t EVEN know what’s in there (since you’ve never read it for YOURSELF)?

    ” Your criteria for accepting the myths of the NT appears to be based upon some pretty sayings…”

    Didn’t say there was anything ‘pretty’ ABOUT them. You keep returning to that characterization of what I said and trying to lay it on me. Won’t stick, because it’s NOT what I said. Nor have you established them to be ‘myths,’ except insofar as it obviously comforts you to tell yourself they’re ‘myths’ — ‘myths’ which you’ve never actually read for yourself.

    I said not that they were ‘pretty’ but that they were BRILLIANT. (They are.)

    “… which you also beleive a special Jewish individual uttered…”

    Well, they had to have been the work of one individual, and a 1st century Jewish individual, and even the most cursory of inspections leaves no doubt that it was a special individual who uttered them; hard to escape those conclusions.

  22. mrg3105 Said:

    Keelie, you wanted to know why I said “That’s wrong” to Yamit82’s quote from Sanhedrin 98a?
    Ask Yamit82 to explain who the ‘paupers’ are.

    He asked you not me. Your criticism your response! If think you should get more acquainted with dweller off line of course. Fist ask him what his “MBTI” is? 😛

    yamit82 Said:

    The paupers are Am Yisrael in a spiritually degraded state.
    A necessary Function of Chevlei Mashiach. 😉 😛

    And NO, ‘paupers’ are not “Am Yisrael in a spiritually degraded state.”

    Want to try again, or do you want me to tell you?

    mrg3105 Said:

    Yamit82, Ted moderated my reply to you regarding ‘paupers’. The answer is in Berakhot, and from there you need to look in Mishnah. If you are not up for the challenge, just give it a rest with all the cut-and-paste of the verses. You only lower yourself to the level of other literalists.

    If you should find the answer, you will find a way to contact me.

    Shalom

    Those who have not known darkness, do not value light

    To value peace, one has to have fought for it first

    You raised the point as to who were the ‘paupers’ in ‘ Sanhedrin 98a’?

    My reply was directly responsive to your question wrt to ‘Sanhedrin98a’

    Your response was not Tractate ‘Berakhot’ (blesssings) is a vast and complicated work I think not directly relate to my response to your question and response to it.

    I’m not about to search and waste my time there to ans a question you can easily supply if you know it, and if you can show where my reply is incorrect and yours is correct.

    Will the Messiah come riding on a cloud or a donkey is the dichotomy and the ans is a donkey. Symbolically what does the donkey represent and why? That’s the context to my response you have provided Nada.

    Not impressed, not at all.

    Shalom

    Those who have not known darkness, do not value light
    To value peace, one has to have fought for it first

    First I refer to you Kohelet – Ecclesiastes 3 read it carefully.

    (Avot 1:18), “On three things does the world stand: justice, truth and peace.” And no less than four tractates (Berachot, Yevamot, Nazir and Keritut) conclude as follows:

    “Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina, ‘Torah scholars increase peace throughout the world, for it says (Isaiah 54:13), ‘All you children shall be taught by the L-rd, and great shall be the peace of your children.'” (See: the end of Berachot). If peace is so important, why has Scripture recorded all the wars of righteous judges and kings. And in general, why is there a mitzvah to go to war, i.e., milchemet mitzvah, the compulsory war? The answer is provided by King Solomon in Eccles. 3:1,8,11: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven… a time for war and a time for peace… He has made everything beautiful in its time.”

    G-d “made everything beautiful – in its time.”

    G-d is described as follows (Ex. 15:3): “The L-rd is the Master of war, ‘Hashem’ is His name.” Despite His name being “Hashem,” a name indicating mercy, He is still “Master of war.” That same Hashem of mercy is also a Master of war against the wicked. Our sages likewise said (Mechilta, Beshalach, Mesechet Deshira 4):

    I think you need to get yourself a real Jewish teacher.

  23. Part of my university education was in developmental psychology, and for work reasons I remain very interested in organisational psychology, particularly as it pertains to project managment, design and innovation.

    A very good friend of mine is however a practicing trauma councillor, most recently working on the team which is dealing with the consequences of a well publicises event in Sydney. We talk about trauma among ‘Jews’ a lot because ironically she has had more contact with the ‘frim’ community than I have in the last few years, dealing with children of Holocaust survivors and child sexual abuse.

    Bernard, sometimes you need to know when to suspend your disbelief, and just listen. Most people aren’t interested in asking questions or listening, and I’m looking for a few that are. You were asking questions, but its not a near-enough-is-close-enough proposition. Its both, or nothing.

    You will get nothing more from me. I strongly suggest spending time with masekhet Makkot.

    What you think of me doesn’t matter to me, and further taunts are not going to get a response. I am very secure in who I am, and what I’m trying to achieve. Everything else is ‘noise’. I have learned to tune it out.

    I do admit though that some things you said were insightful, but they were not enough.

    Have a good life.

    Yamit82, Ted moderated my reply to you regarding ‘paupers’. The answer is in Berakhot, and from there you need to look in Mishnah. If you are not up for the challenge, just give it a rest with all the cut-and-paste of the verses. You only lower yourself to the level of other literalists.

    If you should find the answer, you will find a way to contact me.

    Shalom

    Those who have not known darkness, do not value light
    To value peace, one has to have fought for it first

  24. bernard ross Said:

    what’s the quote about pulling him down from his eagles nest (arrogance and humility)

    Though you build your nest as high as the eagle’s, from there I will bring you down,” declares the LORD.

    Jeremiah 49:16

    Though you soar like the eagle and make your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down,” declares the LORD.
    Ovadia 1:4

    Though they dig down to the depths below, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens above, from there I will bring them down. Amos 9:2

    “The arrogance of your heart has deceived you, You who live in the clefts of the rock, In the loftiness of your dwelling place, Who say in your heart, ‘Who will bring me down to earth?’ 4″Though you build high like the eagle, Though you set your nest among the stars, From there I will bring you down,” declares the LORD. 5″If thieves came to you, If robbers by night– O how you will be ruined!– Would they not steal only until they had enough? If grape gatherers came to you, Would they not leave some gleanings?…

    Proverbs 16:18
    Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

  25. mrg3105 Said:

    It seems to me that you have been ‘here’ too long. Desensitisation due to the sort of ‘discussion’ I saw going on earlier has made you very cynical, which is a sort of a trauma, though I’m not espousing what you call ‘psychobubble’.

    Psychobabble and it is what YOU just did here.

    psychobabble
    [sahy-koh-bab-uh l]Examples Word Origin noun
    1. writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychobabble
    2. psychobabble: Speech that is heavy in post-structuralist jargon that is heavily based on experience and emotion instead of well-known science.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=psychobabble

    😛

  26. mrg3105 Said:

    Bernard, I don’t do ‘chit chat’

    Ted created the chit chat column to avoid off topic and personal conversation. He also has a policy not to allow too much religious discussion as it is not a religious site. As you pretended to be concerned about expiration and being off topic I sought to satisfy your needs. Perhaps you merely were looking for an escape hatch for not explaining or supporting your declarations and edicts.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Your few replies are replete with cliches, which tells me something about you already.

    you would like to make the thread about me becuase you have NOTHING to support your assertions AND because you are likely a Teitlebaum true Torah satmar or NK.
    mrg3105 Said:

    I have already said that I am a Yehudi. Take it or leave it.

    I dont care what you are except to not waste time talking to any so called “True Torah” Jew killers like NK or Teitelbaums.
    mrg3105 Said:

    You said you are ‘Jewish’. Prove it.

    No need, it has no relevance to YOUR assertions, although you want to frantically change the subject from your apparent TOTAL inability to support even ONE of your assertions.
    mrg3105 Said:

    No doubt you will ask me to prove I’m ‘Jewish’ also, and this is why I permitted Ted to provide you with my email address.

    I dont care what you are, only whether you can support or explain your positions here like everyone else.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Once I’m assured that you are ‘Jewish’, we can restart this concersation again

    Why would I restart a conversation with someone so dishonest that he blames his own faults on those asking him to support his own assertions after saying to us that there are no beliefs only “arguments and evidence”. YOU produced neither ONE argument nor ONE bit of evidence; neither, nada, bubkiss, zilch, zero, etc. Frankly, so far you appear to be an empty suit.
    mrg3105 Said:

    I posted a further comment, but Ted may have ‘moderated’ it as it had nothing to do with the thread. Ted of course has his own agenda and bias.

    that is what the chit chat page is for. Stop blaming others for your inadequacies, be a mensch.
    mrg3105 Said:

    If you haven’t applied for a job since 1965, you may be too old in any case.

    too old for what? My last application was as a teenager, every job after that came to me, I never looked for jobs. I was a consultant who never applied or marketed and I was a business man in various businesses employing more than 50 people at a time. I never needed to look for a job, it always came to me AND I never had an interest in a corporate environment. You sound like you just got out of college and are clueless about the world.

    mrg3105 Said:

    And if you are an American, there is no point in starting the conversation.

    why not, is the truth of your assertions relative to my nationality? You appear to be grasping at any straw for an excuse to stall supporting your assertions or answering any relevant questions, searching for any irrelevant tangent or distraction as a way out of looking foolish. I lived for long periods in 3 different countries USA, UK(EU) and the Caribbean all of which allow me nationality if I choose to take the passports. Furthermore, there are 3 more nationalities which I can claim. You appear to have embarked on a journey of avoidance.

    Look at all the posting you have wasted in trying to wiggle out of facing the truth … what can a person of your character show to anyone here. Your character is all we have to go on because you give no arguments or evidence.

    What’s your next story going to be to wiggle out? Fool us and show us if you actually have anything to offer.
    I think you are a “Teitelbaum”.

  27. mrg3105 Said:

    Bernard, I don’t do ‘chit chat’

    Could have fooled me. 🙂

    Chit Chat is meant to give us an opportunity to discuss what ever we choose off topic to any of the current threads, allowing those who are interested only in those threads not to have to wade through tons of comments irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    Bernard understands that, you apparently don’t.

    I wonder why? 😛

  28. Bernard, I don’t do ‘chit chat’
    Your few replies are replete with cliches, which tells me something about you already.

    I have already said that I am a Yehudi. Take it or leave it.
    You said you are ‘Jewish’. Prove it.

    No doubt you will ask me to prove I’m ‘Jewish’ also, and this is why I permited Ted to provide you with my email address. Once I’m assured that you are ‘Jewish’, we can restart this concersation again

    It seems to me that you have been ‘here’ too long. Desensitisation due to the sort of ‘discussion’ I saw going on earlier has made you very cynical, which is a sort of a trauma, though I’m not espousing what you call ‘psychobubble’.

    I posted a further comment, but Ted may have ‘moderated’ it as it had nothing to do with the thread. Ted of course has his own agenda and bias.

    If you haven’t applied for a job since 1965, you may be too old in any case. And if you are an American, there is no point in starting the conversation.

    Cheers

  29. yamit82 Said:

    Pure projection on you end

    were you addressing this to me or our resident psychobabbler?
    If to him you can edit and change my name to his.

  30. mrg3105 Said:

    Bernard, aside from myself, are you angry at someone?

    why do you ask? Are you seeking to throw in a red herring, create a tangent, change the focus to me rather than to the unexplained and unsupported assertions you made and the unanswered questions which I asked? I must warn you that we already have an amateur psychobabblist who is expertly adept in the MO.
    https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63602648/comment-page-12#comment-63356000148390
    mrg3105 Said:

    I think your participation is more entertainment for you than an actual search for answers that you seek

    to begin with it is neither. I asked you to explain and support your assertions so that this would not just be a scenario of you using a soapbox. When you actually GIVE an answer you would be more likely to be able to make that assessment. However, I do understand that you wish to deflect attention to me as a fig leaf for your inability to support or explain your assertions.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Because the answers you seek require considerable depth to receive them,

    Yeh, that’s a transparent cop out to cover your impotency by suggesting that the other party is not up to your massive intellect. Of course, if you are about to use support from a scientology manual, or a book of black magic it might be problematic.

    mrg3105 Said:

    I don’t know anything about you, in the first place it would be good to start there.

    Your knowledge of me is irrelevant to the truth or factual nature of your assertions. Again, you take the path of red herrings to distract from your own impotency.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Mostly I’m interested in what ‘Jewish’ education you have and your MBTI type if you know it

    LOL, have I entered a Yeshiva or am I applying to you for a job? I haven’t made an application for a Job since 1965. Again you employ an obvious red herring to make the discussion about me rather than to supply explanations, arguments,support for the various assertions you made AND answers to questions I put to you. The facts or truth of what you have to say, if anything, are not dependent on me.
    Are you a Naurei Karta, a Teitlebaum true Torah satmar or an anti zionist Karaite? As you have advanced certain positions it would help to understand you if you disclosed your perspective of Torah. You avoided the question.
    mrg3105 Said:

    I’m not going to provide answers in public.

    Is it Top Secret, are you the vessel carrying ancient knowledge? if so WHY did you make the assertions in the first place? Was it simply to showcase your “talents”?
    mrg3105 Said:

    In the first place the discussion will close sometime, and it would be off topic even more so than it already is.

    The discussion can be moved to Chit Chat which does not expire and is available for all subjects or chat. The link is entitled comments and located immediately under the word Chit Chat just above the other reader comments.

    mrg3105 Said:

    The answers may take some time to obtain since I’m only relatively ‘free’ for another two weeks. This is the only ‘deal’ I can offer.

    Deal? answer or not whenever you want if you have anything of value to offer beyond declarations and edicts.

    mrg3105 Said:

    You can huff and puff and hurl insults and accusations, but I would suggest a little meditation

    No huffing and puffing; I suggest you do not parrot the phrases of other posters here without attribution.
    Its not about me: its about you explaining and supporting your assertions with “arguments and evidence” according to the standard which you yourself set at the beginning…did you forget already?

    mrg3105 Said:

    You shouldn’t assume anything about me

    No assumptions I merely observe the facts demonstrated by your behavior: you provide no arguments, evidence or even explanations for the assertions you make here and then you try to deflect requests for them, AND questions, using red herrings to distract from your assertions to the other party. You declare edicts from a soapbox and give nothing to back it up and then point fingers at those who ask instead of YOURSELF. What conclusions would you draw from such behavior?
    mrg3105 Said:

    I’m a lot more open than you are, but like to keep that private

    Open but private, sounds like a split personality or an oxymoron. Anyway,its irrelevant to the truth or factual nature of your assertions.
    mrg3105 Said:

    Tomorrow I will take a look at what other questions I can address relatively quickly

    I am waiting with baited breath! 🙂

    This comment continues from the “Judaism and Christianity are two sides of a necklace” thread:
    https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603213/comment-page-8#comment-63356000148404

  31. dweller Said:

    That’s your first mistake.
    You assume the only choices you have, in the matter of “getting along w/ everyone,” are
    A. ‘nice,’ and
    B. nasty.
    But this is a false dichotomy.
    The two ‘options’ are opposite sides of the same coin.
    Doesn’t matter which side is up when you flip the sucker
    — because the whole coin is counterfeit.
    Not just the “heads” or just the “tails.”
    “Nice” is just a substitute for Good
    — protective coloration, camouflage.
    Good does not need ‘nice’ to run interference for it. It contains within itself the strength, the energy, to sustain itself even in the face of pressure, stress, travail & hate.
    You alternate between nice & nasty when the truth is that neither of them is you.
    “innate hatred of everyone who has perceived of him his false humility.”
    “False humility”? — nonsense; where man is concerned, I have no humility of ANY sort. (You read that right; you betcha.)
    But no “innate hatred” either.
    Humility isn’t about one’s relationship to other men.
    Humility is about one’s relationship to God.
    Anybody who isn’t clear on the distinction is already in trouble deep
    — because he’s confusing man w/ God; effectively making other men, other persons, his ‘god.’
    ANY ‘humility’ which parades itself to man is, in its nature, false.
    “I knew I was wasting my time humbling myself”
    You were right, but not in the way you think. You were wasting your time in a false quest.
    The feeling you had — that you were wasting your time — was your conscience trying to alert you that you were angling for advantage. That is, that your show of ‘humility’ was intended to get something BACK for you in the way of regard, esteem, etc.
    You were INDEED wasting your time in the effort, because that kind of stuff doesn’t impress me (and on some level, you KNEW it) ; it’s true — I’ve no use for anybody’s show of ‘humility’ toward me. I’m the same person: WITH the song-&-dance and the kissing-up, or WITHOUT it. I don’t need it
    — and YOU shouldn’t need it either, Michael.
    “maybe I’M being hateful if I don’t give the guy another chance at being amiable.”
    You ARE being hateful — but not because of any failure to “give the guy another chance at being amiable.”
    “The guy” doesn’t need another such ‘chance.’
    And why in blue blazes DO you crave that superficial, jive-assed crap anyway?
    You need people to be “amiable” with you so you can therefore like yourself; and when you don’t get it — or when you perceive that you’re not getting it the way you think you should — you become hateful, nasty.
    — That’s what’s TRULY crazy.

    😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
    We should all be grateful for this front row seat to his serial repeating of a grand performance. It NEVER ceases to put me in stitches:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0

  32. dweller Said:

    To say that those lustrous, luminescent, brilliant sayings of [persons unknown] are NOT the work of a ‘committee’ is another way of stating that they can only have been the utterances of a single individual — and reading those sayings leaves no doubt that WHOEVER that single individual was would’ve had to be a very special individual, and most definitely one with a first century Jewish background; no way around that. You don’t just make that stuff up, out of whole cloth, like a novel.

    Actually you do just make that stuff up like a novel. Your criteria for accepting the myths of the NT appears to be based upon some pretty sayings which you also beleive a special Jewish individual uttered…HOwever, how do you jump to a “Jewish messiah”, born of a union between the G_D of the jews and a virgin, who died, was resurrected, and is coming back again to finish his undone job. All your posts give no support outside of christian sources for the existence and narrative of Jesus and his disciples.
    It comes back to this:
    You have decided to take your information from the culture associated with the serial, chronic, libeling, swindling, torture and slaughter of Jews for 2000 years and still ongoing today. There is nothing from those sources wrt Jews that would have a single shred of credibility for me. If a serial liar and murderer makes assertions, I find it suspect. However, you compare and give equal credibility to Jewish sources with the credility of serial chronic jew killers and libelers.

    Furthermore, in the end, you ascribe the basis for your belief in jesus, his Jewish Messiahship, his resurrection, his virgin birth, his predicted 2nd coming to your INTUITION. Perhaps you can describe your epiphanies to the posters here so they can evaluate your claims based upon the quality of your source, I have no doubt they will be interested.

    Therefore, it is Christian sources and your intuition that you rely on for your jesus narratives.
    dweller Said:

    those lustrous, luminescent, brilliant sayings of [persons unknown] ….. can only have been the utterances of a single individual

    Perhaps it was santa claus or rapunzel, or Zeus?

  33. dweller Said:

    Put the apple down, Eve.

    Gosh Sweetie, didn’t know yawl snakes liked apples. Should have tempted with one earlier, instead of using bones.