soc.culture.iraq

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:41:11 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
wrote:

>
>"Michael Gray" wrote in message
>news:d372s3hfipudedlmvfq9cdjkef4bg91asl@...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:04:28 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:05:14 +1030, Michael Gray
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:08:06 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Michael Gray" wrote in message
>>>>>news:pg1vr3586j79goqh8745ui33p432sm2c7c@...
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:11:44 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:bo0sr3llgsktfjj4sui3cfvofpnmqe8m5c@...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:44:57 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:qr1rr35r3nth6h6g4durjkni1sqahvsg6i@...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:43:16 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christ and Lord are titles, not names. When is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> earliest mention of the name Jesus?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That is called "shifting the burden".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. It is called "getting you to realise one of the reasons why
>>>>>>>>>> Tacitus, Suetonius and Plainly weren't talking about Jesus when
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> said "Christ".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please try to keep up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didnt raise those people as examples or claim that there is
>>>>>>>>>evidence
>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>Please try to keep up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YET YOU ACCUSED ME OF NOT EXPLAINING WHY THEY WEREN'T, WHEN SOME
>>>>>>>> IDIOT
>>>>>>>> HAD OFFERED THEM AS EVIDENCE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Evidence of "Christ" which he believed to be the same person a Jesus.
>>>>>>>and which I subsequently acknowledged and ask to be put asied and we
>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>look into whether theris evidence for "Jesus"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is none at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>The historic record does not agree with you and you are out of step with
>>>>>most historians whether they believe in God or not!
>>>
>>>A very revealing remark. She imagines it's about what scholars think,
>>
>> For that is what it is ALL about!
>> Don't think for one's-self, let your slavedrivers do the thinking for
>> you!
>
>Do you accept the derivation of the general field equations?
>Do you accept the existance of Dark matter?
>How about Dark Energy?
>What about parallell universes or wormholes?

Eight logical fallacies all in the one paragraph!
That must be some sort of record.

Rather than being distracted by your infantile sophistry, I ask:
Where is YOUR evidence for the biblival Jesus?

Oh that's right, you do not have ANY!

Thus the need to derail the questions.

You are mentally pathetic.

Where is YOUR evidence in favour of an historical Jesus?
If you prevaricate once again, I shall have to assume that you have
NONE whatsoever, and are lying and floundering in a juvenile attempt
to avoid answering.

I shall then insert you into my special kill-file reserved for willful
liars.

You have just ONE CHANCE to relay your positive evidence.

: