BF2S Forums Cavemen

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ok, let's put jesus as historical figure and jesus as religious character aside, shall we. the former is pretty much unrecoverable from two thousans of years of doctoring and forging the evidence, save the "looser and the loonatic" part which make jusus existence not worth researching - a lot of those experts you like mentioning so much would agree with me on this one; and the latter has nothing to do with what we are discussing here (well, apart from me moking you). that, in a nutshell, is what i've been trying to get across. can we agree to disagree now?

And the bolded part is where you are wrong.

Which you would know.

If you had bothered to read even a little bit about the topic before wading into debate on it.

But you didn't. Why bother with educating yourself when a deeply held opinion that's based on nothing but your own bigoted views can suffice?

ah, i see. still making conclusions based on nothing but your own, obviously biased, views. ok, moving on.

I'm making conclusions based on your posts, Shahter. How's that for a dose of reality?

As I stated before, I haven't brought my faith (or lack thereof) into the discussion--you have tried to, several times. My position has been based on cited research in the topic. Yours has been based on a bashing of the religion of Christianity. When you try to attack the historicity, you have nothing to stand on, as figures you have no issues with have as weak, if not a weaker, historical record--something historians have already resolved objectively. Yet, when those facts are pointed out to you, you fall back to bashing the religion or your perception of my personal religious views--as if that somehow strengthens your position.

Shahter wrote:

p.s. and before you throw another "pot/kettle" at me - yes, my opinion is also based on my own views, obviously. the difference is - i don't beleave in talking snakes.

And again...you are confusing the religion with the historicity of the man. You can't get past it. You simply can't look beyond your bias against the religion and look at the historicity of the man objectively.

The bolded part has been proven wrong, via cited sources in this thread. Did you bother to read any of them? Of course not.