Evidence for Jesus

[_dartagnan]

For the record, nowhere on this thread has dartagnan/Kevin claimed that "all historians acknowledge Jesus existed". I hope you'll all consider moving past this sticking point in the discussion because it simply doesn't exist.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!

We have ourselves a winner.

Next up?

[_Jersey Girl]

For the record, nowhere on this thread has dartagnan/Kevin claimed that "all historians acknowledge Jesus existed". I hope you'll all consider moving past this sticking point in the discussion because it simply doesn't exist.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!

We have ourselves a winner.

Next up?

Well, you didn't say "virtually all" until you responded to marg's assertion so let's don't gloat!

[_dartagnan]

I have said virtually before, I just don't recall where exactly. I was working off memory here, and I know I have never said "all historians" as marg falsely alleged. In any event, the fact is I was accused of making a claim I never made. Then I was accused for lying about it once I denied making it.

The fact is, JAK is failing to comprehend basic English here.

I never said "all historians" and that was the original claim.

And why should I "gloat" about being innocent of a baseless charge? There is nothing to gloat about. I'm just tired of being dragged down to these levels, always being accused of some kind of deviousness, when in reality I'm dealing with children who are more interested in taking irrational and rhetorical jabs instead of dealing with their own arguments and backing them up with substance.

I think it is order for JAK to apologize (not holding my breath), but I suspect another tag team matchup is in order between the two of them. Anything to avoid admitting wrongdoing.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have said virtually before, I just don't recall where exactly. I was working off memory here. In any event, the fact is I was accused of making a claim I never made. Then I was accused for lying about it once I denied making it.

The fact is, JAK is failing to comprehend basic English here.

I never said "all historians" and that was the original claim.

And why should I gloat about being innocent of a baseless charge? There is nothing to gloat about. I'm just tired of being dragged down to these levels, always being accused of some kind of deviousness, when in reality I'm dealing with children who are more interested in taking irrational and rhetorical jabs instead of dealing with their own arguments and backing them up with substance.

I think it is order for JAK to apologize (not holding my breath).

These are the facts:

You never said "all historians" on the thread as marg claims.

You did not say "virtually all historians" on this thread until you responded to marg's assertion.

marg's claim is in error.
JAK's support of that claim is in error.
Your claim is actually in error.

Would anyone like to engage the topic?

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK

Again, marg is correct in recollection of what you stated and what you now revise.

No, she is not correct.

Just look up the easy-access links I gave you here to see your own claims. You did not use the word “virtually” with regard to historians as you claim.

This is correct. He did not use the word "virtually" with regard to historian's as he claimed. He used the word "virtually" in response to marg's claim which was in error.

Got topic?

[_dartagnan]

It doesn't matter if I used the word virtually.

What matters is that I didn't use the word all.

Isn't that what I'm accused of saying?

I know I have been careful in referring to historians, atheists, etc, and "virtually" has been a qualifier I have used in the past. If it doesn't exist in this discussion, then fine, I misspoke. But my point still stands in that I am careful not to say all historians. Marg's accusation is false, and JAK's longwinded attempt to make this charge credible is nothing short of amazing. But it kinda gives you a sense of what's really important to him here, and the facts have nothing to do with it.

[_JAK]

For the record, nowhere on this thread has dartagnan/Kevin claimed that "all historians acknowledge Jesus existed". I hope you'll all consider moving past this sticking point in the discussion because it simply doesn't exist.

Jersey Girl

marg observed:
What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true. Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

Kevin stated:
This is not true. It is silly to say only "some" historians accept this. Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries. Only recently have atheists tried to argue the untenable by saying he never really existed. If you find historians who reject the historicity of Jesus, then they are the ones on the fringe, not vice versa.

Kevin Revises Statement Claiming he didn’t state what the evidence shows he stated:
Quote marg:
What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true.

Kevin:
I didn't claim that. I said, "Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."


Kevin stated:
"Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries."

How many exceptions do you see in that statement about "historians"?

He made contradictory statements. marg pointed it out. Throughout his participation, Kevin has defended "historical Jesus" and claimed agreement among historians. It's incorrect. GoodK pointed it out. marg pointed it out. I have pointed it out.

The quote above with a link to the full original post does not recognize exceptions. Kevin's reference to what he had said was inaccurate, and these links demonstrate that (unless he or someone else has edited them). His two statements here are inconsistant.

It's not a "sticking point." It's a point of clarity and what was stated.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Message from me here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=136662#136662

[_dartagnan]

When are you going to buck up and accept the fact that you and marg are wrong?

I never said that. You have yet to provide a citation that shows me saying that.

Do you think that by constantly reiterating your refuted argument, that it is going to somehow change that fact?

The moderator already said your claim is false.

Does anyone else want to take a crack at this and show where I ever said "all historians" accept the historicity of Jesus?

JAK is desperate here. Someone help him out.

[_Jersey Girl]

When are you going to buck up and accept the fact that you and marg are wrong?

I never said that. You have yet to provide a citation that shows me saying that.

Do you think that by constantly reiterating your refuted argument, that it is going to somehow change that fact?

The moderator already said your claim is false.

Does anyone else want to take a crack at this and show where I ever said "all historians" accept the historicity of Jesus?

JAK is desperate here. Someone help him out.

Correction. I have not commented anywhere on the thread as moderator.