Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

You actually should justify your own views before you come expecting people to rush to answer your questions.

"It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died."

Why is this odd? Could you contextualize this assumption, and show that it is expected that a person in Jesus' context be immediately written about? Discussion of who had access to writing materials, who could write, and the relative significance of Jesus' region compared to Roman politics would be a good start.

Originally posted by member11491

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

Greetings, member,

Welcome to TWeb.

If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere. JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced. He has no concern whatsoever for the unbeliever. As such, any questions from outside the camp are unlikely to receive a cogent response here. As intimated, JPH's purpose with such questions is not education.

As ever, Jesse

Well, BA, you're asking the impossible, because Dum Dum here is a member of forums over at "jesusneverexisted.com" where he operates under the name, "Jesus".

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/for...hp?topic=200.0

He's about as interested in honest discussion as Ernesto and Julio Gallo are interested in reenacting Prohibition.

Originally posted by member11491 "thinks he's Jesus"

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

Do tell us, "Jesus," how exactly you arrive at the determination of authorship for a document. For example, explain to use how you know Tacitus wrote the Annals. Then use the same criteria to show us why these "letters" (whichever ones they are) are actually "anonymous".

Unless you're also one of these stool pigeons who thinks the Annals were forged. Then we'll just start the laugh track on the right as well as the left.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Yep. That's the plan.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have?

He's already read my material on the secular references so he knows darned well what the answer is. Here's the only thing that came in reply to that:

Tacitus and Josephus are laughable. The Tacitus quote is disputed and was written 60 years after JC died, a thousand miles away. The Josephus passage you are referring to is also highly disputed, and definitely not contemporary with the life of JC.

Good night, what frightening stupidity! I answered this all in my articles.

1) The Tacitus quote is NOT disputed. Not by ANYONE, other than 19th century freethinkers that the real scholars laugh at.

2) Tacitus writes about stuff that happened even longer ago and/or farther away than that in his works (Agricola, Annals, Histories) but not one historian ever uses that as an excuse to dismiss what he writes.

3) I gave detailed info on the Josephus quote and what is NOT disputed in it. Your answer? NONE!

As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

If you're after earnest faith, then Krusty the Klown is President of the United States.

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

I imagine we'll get a few yuks out of you before you realize you're in over your head and then either leave or sink into infamy as yet another in our collection of fundy atheists we regularly give Screwball Awards to.

Originally posted by taoist

If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere. JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced.

You wanna endorse the Christ myth too, there, Jesse?

I'll be glad to add that to your list of embarrassing bungles -- Mr. Studdock.


Don't even try it, Minny. You're over your head.

Originally posted by taoist

Greetings, member,

Welcome to TWeb.

Hi member.

Originally posted by taoist

If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere.

J P Holding posts here, it sounded like in the OP he wanted to talk to JP.

Originally posted by taoist

JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced.

Says you.

Originally posted by taoist

He has no concern whatsoever for the unbeliever.

Says you.

Originally posted by taoist

As such, any questions from outside the camp are unlikely to receive a cogent response here.

Says you.

Originally posted by taoist

As intimated, JPH's purpose with such questions is not education.

As ever, Jesse

I like my well poisoned with Jack Daniels; can you help me out?

Originally posted by Trout

Hi member.

Hi "Trout"!

J P Holding posts here, it sounded like in the OP he wanted to talk to JP.

It sounded to me like he was looking for someone other than JP, but that comes from this awful habit of actually reading OPs.

"I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith."

See what I mean? The OP clearly assumes no meaningful response will be forthcoming from JPH. It's even *gasp* polite, a clear signal that it's intended for someone, anyone, other than JPH.

Says you.

Yeah, I do my own writing.

Says you.

Pithy.

Says you.

Analysis.

I like my well poisoned with Jack Daniels; can you help me out?

Sorry, I don't drink. But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate, a practice so obviously in agreement with my comments it is no wonder your above pithy analysis is as entirely lacking in substance as JPH's own.



As ever, Jesse

Originally posted by taoist

Hi "Trout"!

Those quotation marks are to be used exclusively when addressing the "Gerbil", any attempt at using them differently could result in immediate violent diarrhea.

Originally posted by taoist

Sorry, I don't drink. But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate, a practice so obviously in agreement with my comments it is no wonder your above pithy analysis is as entirely lacking in substance as JPH's own.



As ever, Jesse

I've read quite a lot of JP's work, and I have come to a different opinion. But yours is obviously superior to mine. As far as my "poisoning the well" analysis, I think it was spot on.

And taoist, you know I love you man.

And here I thought this joker was starting to put away $1000 on an emergency fund. . .

Originally posted by taoist

But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate...

You may not have noticed, but JPH does not hesitate to take Christians to task either. He attacks poor arguments, regardless who formulates or propagates them. He also does not solely argue by smackdown; he was quite polite to Doubting John, for example, until it became clear that DJ wasn't really interested in discussing specifics. Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someone, but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.

Originally posted by member11491

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

Hi Member11491,

I'm not a 'trained apologist', but I am a Christian with a genuine interest in helping sincere seekers onto the "path to faith". I was a Christian when I was younger, but became disillusioned in my late teens. Prior to my return to faith over the last ten years, I did a lot of critical examination of the historical evidence and nature of 'personal faith'. I also spent many years examining the historical appearance and rise of the Christian Church, which obviously must have had some historical reason for coming into existance.

I'd be glad to have a civilised dicussion with you, but I am not interested in 'debating'.

Perhaps a good place to start would simply be getting to know each other a little bit, finding out where we both are at, and then we could take it from there.

Cheers

Originally posted by One Bad "Gerbil"

You may not have noticed, but JPH does not hesitate to take Christians to task either. He attacks poor arguments, regardless who formulates or propagates them. He also does not solely argue by smackdown; he was quite polite to Doubting John, for example, until it became clear that DJ wasn't really interested in discussing specifics. Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someone, but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.

taoist seems a little bitter

Maybe it would make him feel better about himself if we poisoned his well so he could scream at us for making a logical mistake?

Originally posted by OldManZangetsu

taoist seems a little bitter

He's an ex-nuke. I can understand that.

Maybe it would make him feel better about himself if we poisoned his well so he could scream at us for making a logical mistake?

I'd rather help him clean his out.

Originally posted by member11491

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Like I said at this post, the nature of your initial letter to Mr. Holding seemed to have a sharp tone to it. Are you really here seeking answers, or are you here because you're trying to make Christians look stupid? If I recall, owlafaye was the last person to attemp the latter; he ended up fleeing within about 48 hours.

Originally posted by NJon

. . .Are you really here seeking answers, or are you here because you're trying to make Christians look stupid? . . ..

When will those folks who think they can make Christians look stupid realise that I'm quite capable of making myself look stupid.

Look, here's Johnny Nazarene doing a wee dance Nuff said.

Originally posted by Trout

Those quotation marks are to be used exclusively when addressing the "Gerbil", any attempt at using them differently could result in immediate violent diarrhea.

"Fuzzy and evil" one, I believe you should immediately check your avatar as you seem otherwise unaware of the source of my, admittedly rather obscure, use of the Gerbil-reserved caution quotes.

I've read quite a lot of JP's work, and I have come to a different opinion. But yours is obviously superior to mine. As far as my "poisoning the well" analysis, I think it was spot on.

I can only say that JPH's work is likely to strike a different chord were you to read it as one "outside the faith". From the inside, it may be simple to pass over the gross proportion of his analyses devoted to little more than scatalogical references to his ideological opponents. I do not share your need to grant him a brother-in-christ benefit of the doubt. Were these comments included in any other field of study, they would be scholastically unacceptable. If they are not specifically designed to put off nonbelievers, then I can only say that he has a vast talent for doing so unconsciously.

While I can't say I've read more than a tiny fraction of his work, and almost certainly less than yourself, on those few occasions I've actually bitten the bullet and searched out his commentary on a few verses I wished to consider, I've come away feeling like I've wasted my time due to both the lack of substance and the amount of material it's necessary to sift through to discover that lack of substance. It's quite disappointing.

More, as one who's gone out of my way to engage theists with sincere, though often naive, questions, I can think of no other christian who's been less forthcoming with honest answers. As to my poisoning his well, I can only say that JPH's work is a well already poisoned by JPH, an issue I've brought up with him politely on more than one occasion, only to be repeatedly brushed off, to put it mildly. If he wishes to see me as an enemy, or some emissary of Satan, that's his look out. As far as I'm concerned, we share the same humanity, and if this earth is all there is, it would be best if we acted as if we're all in it together.

And taoist, you know I love you man.

Aw heck, Trout, I love you too. You're one of my favorite "virtual" christians, despite your penchant for fixing elections. Now, about that avatar ...

As ever, Jesse

__________

Originally posted by One Bad "Gerbil"

Originally posted by OldManZangetsu

taoist seems a little bitter

He's an ex-nuke. I can understand that.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Anchors aweigh, Jesse