Discussion 7 to Meditation 249
I think we've heard enough of the nonsense
by JT
To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.Mr. DeLucchi:
You made a claim that certain records existed.
I challenged you to produce them.
You went off on a tangent, unnecessarily showing that the supposed writer of your imaginary records existed.
Good Grief! So what? Pilate's existence was not challenged - the records that you and you alone claimed existed were challenged.
You blather on about truth. Yet you don't seem to understand that when you support your truth of Jesus with outright falsehoods, then you undermine the credibility of any legitimate arguments you might have. And when one of those falsehoods is exposed to the world, you lack the common sense to admit your error.
And what is the point of establishing the reality of sundry secondary characters in the New Testament? It establishes nothing more than does the use of real characters and places in a work of historical fiction.
- Fact: There is no currently known evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ dating from the time in which he supposedly lived.
- Fact: You claimed the existence of "the records of the Roman Governer Pontius Pilate relate to his trial and the effect it had on the future of Pilate." On being challenged, you are unable to support that specific claim.
- Fact: Your accusation that I "hedged my bet" when I challenged you on the above claim is false. It is not hedged in the slightest. The challenge is based upon exactly what you claimed. The challenge is not a hedge; rather it is calling you to account for presenting a falsehood as fact.
- Fact: In my previous article on on this issue, you were told to "Put up - or shut up. Or at minimum, admit you are wrong." You have failed to act on this strong suggestion.
You have demonstrated that you have nothing to offer other than piffle, waffle, misunderstanding, misinformation, obfuscation and evasion. Your further contributions will not be published on this site until such time as you are able to respond to the challenge by either proving your claim or admitting your errors.
In the event you intend contributing your thoughts to other web sites, I suggest you take up the recommendation you so blindly offered me; that is do some research. Not only do you not have sufficient knowledge to challenge agnosticism, you don't have the requisite level of knowledge about your own religion to defend it without consistently making false and erroneous statements. I commend the Catholic Encyclopedia to you which will tell you, for example, exactly which of the four writers of the gospels are actually considered by the Catholic Church to have been witnesses to the events covered by the gospels, and which were not. To claim all four were witnesses demonstrates your ignorance of the basic roots the form of Christianity which you follow.
...and back to addressing the orginal article with DISCUSSION 8 >