On what is proving to be the longest thread on Theology Web Campus, I see that final conclusions have been written up by Doug Shaver, who stated:

‘All this proves is that the gospels are not entirely accurate as historical sources. We’re probably justified in doubting that he was as famous as the gospel writers said he was. From this, it does not follow that we’re entitled to doubt his existence.’
Post 2612 : There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

Of course one needs to remember that Doug Shaver sold out to religion and then left after it did not meet up to his expectations. (refer: How I got religion and then lost it ) The experience he had certainly does not even match that which is described in Hebrews 6:

‘For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.’
(Hebrews 6:4-6 ESV)

Many pretenders abound on this forum. They confess to having once been Christians, but after cross-questioning I’ve found only a handful who insist they’ve ‘fallen away’. (Personally, I believe if you’ve properly got that ‘good infection’ (of which C.S Lewis talked about in his book ‘Mere Christiantity’), it’s not something that’ll ‘leave you nor forsake you’ )

The following reply to Doug Shaver’s comment (above) by Jaecp (borrowed from what we already know, but give his usual word-twist) is followed by a quote from the ESV Study Bible:

‘I think its much more likely that a man named Jesus had a cult following (ziiiing) and the followers expanded on what he was after he died. ‘
Post 2617 : There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

Judaism after a.d. 70 (c. a.d. 70–c. 1750)
After the destruction of the temple (a.d. 70), only two Jewish sects survived. One sect, the Pharisees, gave rise to the rabbis of subsequent centuries and eventually developed into modern Judaism. A second major sect that survived, the “Nazarenes,” were the Jewish followers of Jesus (cf.Acts 24:5 ‘For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.’). For the first few years after the death of Jesus, the earliest church was comprised mostly of Jewish believers and was viewed as a movement within Judaism (cf. “temple” in Acts 2:46). Beginning with Peter’s ministry to Cornelius (Acts 10) and Paul’s initial ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1–43; 11:20–26; 13:1–52), the church expanded rapidly with the inclusion of many non-Jews, and thus the modern Christian church was firmly established (cf.Acts, esp. chs. 2; 15; Eph. 2:11–22).

One cannot draw a straight line from the Bible to every current Jewish belief and practice. After a.d. 70, Judaism continued to undergo significant reformulation and change. For example, the temple sacrifice of Passover lambs was discontinued, and the yearly entry of the high priest into the Most Holy Place was no more. The rabbis replaced these and other rituals of the temple with symbolic reminders, liturgical references, and spiritual exercises such as repentance, prayer, and good deeds. With the destruction of the central sanctuary in Jerusalem and the scattering of Jews from their land, the home became increasingly important as the fountainhead of Jewish religious life.

The most significant source in the development of postbiblical (rabbinic) Judaism is the Talmud (lit., “learning”). This massive compilation of rabbinic teachings and discussions accumulated its material in both oral and written form for several centuries, and attained its final written form about a.d. 500. Centuries later, medieval scholars such as Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and Rashi, along with modern scholars, would further shape postbiblical Jewish thought. Contemporary Judaism thus rests on more than the Jewish Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament). A significant hallmark of contemporary Judaism is its recognition of an ongoing, living tradition: the commentary of the rabbis and sages, both past and present.

From: ESV Study Bible: The Bible and World Religions (pdf)

On the previous pag there were a few interesting comments by rogue66 (post 2570 and post 2571 and Polimist (post 2611) continues arguing with the troll popuplation.

Daresay, the arguments about the existence of the biblical Jesus’ will continue, for this is one part of history that cannot and should never be ignored. (I take my lead from Albert Einstein on this.)

‘Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” ‘
From: Albert Einstein’s religious views: Isaacson, Walter (2007). “Einstein and Faith” Time 169 (April 5): 47.

Here’s a more contemporary rendering of the message that satisfies:

‘You’ve been into Yoga, ESP and TM, but have you heard that Jesus said, ‘You must be born again’ ? Booze and smoke, sex and music only lasts awhile, but if you will accept Christ now, then this is what you’ll find – Jesus satisfies, Lord Jesus still changes lives, nothing satisfies, without Christ you’re just living a lie.’ (From: “Nothing Satisfies” – Jesus Was A Teenager by Allan Bird )

A mere triviality (something I’ve mentioned enough times) is found in the weak arguments of another troll (and side kick – notice the ‘Amen’ of bertaberts) – post 2619 ). Though, many have presented much to this troll, the old fingers in the ears and ignoring everything that has gone before is the style that has earned this very religious troll the ignore from other t-webbers.
The short answer is study the work of Dr. Gary Habermas, in particular the resurrection of Jesus. / visit ‘The One Minute Apologist’ / Day of Discovery

Final Update:

There is a style of apologetic argument that can only be described as ‘fawning’. Read the following comment and decide for yourself. ( post 2647 )

Post 2653 : It seems the discussion has picked up for awhile as rogue66 presents arguments that have been presented to the ‘very’ religious Tassman. My guess is he’ll use the old admominen retorts he’s been know for and then bolt and run off whining with his tale tuck tightly between his legs. – - Hey, we might be surprised but I doubt it. –> rogue66 is a patient t-webber so this should be a pretty interesting exchange.

Post 2663 : Occasionally a one-liner is spot on and though there are other references as in 1 Corinthians 15 To Listen, this one is right on the button:

In response to:

… As an informed Christian you should know that Paul never refers to the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels. …

Answer provided by robrecht:

See 1 Cor 11.23-26.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV) To Listen

End.

From: The Music of Malcolm Wild and Alwyn Wall

‘You had the Beatles and we had Malcolm and Alwyn and that’s why we love you more than yesterday’

My own thoughts:

This blog was originally called X-Process and if you look at the number of hits it’s had since then, you’ll see it’s nearing the 200 000 mark.

Back when this blog was still called X-Process, I spent many hours researching and writing articles for it; but one day I decided to reduce my blogs and this was one of the first ones to get the proverbial chop.
It lay dormant for sometime and then I remembered all the cool blogs that were deleted at Theology Web Campus (when they made the big change) and decided that I’d search for t-webber websites and blogs and make this blog into an archive for them, and Voila!!! Theology Web Campus (Blogs and Websites) was born.
When I’ve got time, I review the occassional TWC post and sometimes post up in the old X-Process tradition.

Thanks for visiting us and reading.

Peace,
headheart (t-webber)

I must say that I am mightily impressed with the manner in which RBerman is managing the arguments presented by Amos and Micah (I kid you not this tag-team have chosen the names of two of the minor prophets – sure it is eerie and though it doesn’t send shivers up my spine it’s got me thinking about cults.) Seriously, there’s not that much difference between cultists, Bible Thumperists or King Jamesists. Well, enough prattle. Like, I said, ‘RBerman is managing the arguments ….’

Micah & Amos’ arguments and RBerman’s comment: post 91

Just some thoughts I thought worth adding.

It’s very easy to get hooked by the ideas being articulated by Micah & Amos and if you’ve read the core of the early King James Only teachers you’d definitely recognize the references and form of argumentation. I do, I used to be a King James Only guy. As I said in part one ‘Bible Thumperists’ it’s a gradual process and means answering a score of erroneous arguments well. (I suggested Dr. DA Carson’s book and hold firm that it is a good leveller.) I don’t think it will deal with all the modern arguments, considering it was written in 1979, but it will give a good background to the problem.

Click through and read the well constructed article titled: The Bible: King James Version by Dr. Stephen C. Meyers, Th.D. Vice-president, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies who’s conclusion sums up a conclusion I came to eventually:

The KJV is a good translation, but it is not perfect. It is outdated. There are better modern translations that make the Bible easier to read and understand. I like the NIV Study Bible the best.

-Dr. Stephen C. Meyers

What I have learned is that there is a huge similarity between the manner in which Jehovah’s Witnesses were/are bound to their New World Translation (which has had considerable revisions) but let’s not go there for King James Onlyism is quickly undone when one considers the text. It brings back a memory of how I’d carry my King James Dictionary around with me and how Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D eventually published The DEFINED King James Bible

I think what really helped me break free from King James Only thinking was a combination of study and having a careful look at textual criticism.

I’ll be keeping an eye on RBerman’s responses but I won’t be losing too much sleep.

Sleep?

Here’s a balanced response to the debate by Matt Fenn (ex-Jehovah’s Witness) = Textual Criticism 101

Here are three articles referred to above, and a few more:

1. The Bible : King James Version
2. FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
3. Excellent! – THE KING JAMES ONLY ISSUE

4. Confessions of a KJV Only Advocate (free audio book)
5. Bible Version & King James Only Controversy Information and book by Rick Norris (not to be confused with Chuck Norris )

6. WESCOTT & HORT RESOURCE CENTRE
7. THE KING JAMES RESOURCE CENTRE

All this has brought back memories of how I got caught up in it for seven years (is that the Biblical period for this?) and how I got out of it. It’s definitely like one of those maze gardens. I’ll write it someday but for now I think what I’ve linked should give you enough information to read and free yourself from it.

Peace,
Blue Django

I posted up my own story on the 1st of September 2006, right here in Theology Web Campus (not this blog, in the actually Biblical Languages forum where this argument is being conducted) – WHY AM I NOT A KING JAMES ONLYIST ANYMORE! by headheart (That’s me folks, and that’s all folks)

‘Must have precious ….’ Smeagol/Golum

Final Update: After some useful posts by kiwimac (posts 102 – 103 – 104 ) with regard to the way in which certain KJOs have attacked the work of Wescott and Hort (refer also : ‘Gail Riplinger’s Misquotes, Errors and Lies’ ), I think RBerman’s post sums it up. ( It’s a very slow process to ween KJOs off their ‘one-bible-to-rule-them-all-and-in-the-darkness-bind-them’, so I second his final words with regard to ‘Amos’ (not the minor prophet) the KJO who has used the name as an alias )

RBerman says: (post 111 on 12.12.2011) < one zero

'Kiwi, it's a lost cause. Amos has no intention of interacting with what you're actually saying. I don't think he's even capable of doing so. Don’t feed the trolls.‘

Artwork from 'Eaten By Ducks'

Update: 18 December 2011

Finally ‘Bill The Cat’ (Department Head) has called ‘Amos’ out in post 198 ‘I’ve already chosen life. You’ve chosen idolarty.’ and if you’ve followed this confused persons comments, I think the following picture summarizes the position that many King James Onlyists find themselves in when they put their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes to the facts.

(Update > Moderator Edits > Flame Posts by ‘Amos’ have been removed and therefore some of the links no longer align with and in some cases prevent access to the thread.)

I suppose the positive note is that reasonable (after a fashion) discussions have slowed down and focused upon 1 John 5:7-8 between ‘Micah’ and RBerman. Refer: Posts 46 & 47 and between John Reece and Omniskeptical (Deist) – Refer: Posts 48, 49, 50 and 51 – 15 December 2011. It’s time to get out my notes.

In the meantime, the following link will suffice:

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace

+)(+

Finally, back in 2003 another t-webber > alias : ‘EdJones’ (a King James Onlyist) who posted up ‘The Niv Challenge’ in BL301 was soundly refuted by Socrates, GrayPilgrim and Jaltus. (refer page 2)

EdJones’ avatar (below) adequately describes the modern day KJV 1611′st

‘In the middle of muttering prophets of King Jamesism ….’ (refer my previous post ‘Bible Thumperists’ for the context) a regular ‘apostoli’ posted up a link to the preface of the KJV 1611 (refer post 60)

He wrote the following:

Not even the translators of the KJV claimed the rubbish you wish to claim for them. For whatever reason KJV only types prefer to edit out the KJV’s original preface, read it for yourself and find out your claims aren’t even supported by the original KJV committee…here is a link to the full text, in its original archaic language…hope you can understand it…if not, then obviously you even misread the KJV…
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

What set me free from King Jamesism (or King James Onlyism) weren’t the volleys of heated discussions-arguments-debates but an earnest desire on my part to find out what particular words in their context meant in the Hebrew or Greek and I guess a willingness to read commentaries by those who were learned in these ancient languages. It was a slow process and took quite a few years for me to be convinced enough to step down a few rungs on my K.J.O ladder and begin to read and listen with a humble heart to the word’s of life. (I kid you not, I had a severe case of KJO Blues and though I was prevented from warping the minds of the young Bible student from the Bible College, who visited our church from time to time, I managed to delude myself inspite of all the facts to the contrary. ( a really good read about this is by Dr. DA Carson ) I thank God that He freed me to really enjoy my Bible and not worship it!)

Back to the thread: Dean John Burgon demolishes Westcott-Hort textual theories

Actually, it aught to be mentioned here that RBerman already presented this information (the preface to the KJV) in post 36 :

‘What do you mean when you say that “The KJV is not a translation”? The 1611 text of of KJV starts with a preface written by, and I quote, “The translators of the Bible.” Are you saying that they were mistaken in their belief that they were translators? Do you know something that they didn’t know?’

As well as a long rebuttal in post 38 , which in my opinion ended the argument. Yet King Jamesism is overcome a pebble at a time and they have a tendency to put their fingers in their ears and go ‘na-nar-na-nar-na-narrrrrrrrr’ and the recite their mantra.

There was also a very interesting tidbit by Jaltus (pretty skilled cat!!!) who left the following berry: (post 58)

‘A friend of mine did his PhD on a Coptic manuscript of Matthew (about 13 chapters from somewhere in the middle to close to the end). The original thought was that it was totally different from any other manuscript with some major gnostic interpolations. It dates from about 50 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus. After doing his research, he realized it actually validates the eclectic text as it shows clearly a blend of those two major manuscripts, often siding with one against the other and agreeing with both when both agree. Very big news indeed! His dissertation should be out sometime next year. His name is James Leonard and I think he did his PhD at Cambridge. He worked closely with Gordon Fee.’

Here’s a link to Rev. James M. Leonard’s blog : Treasures Old and New – Biblical Texts and Meaning

There were also two words which were pointed out, one by John Reece and the second one by LPOT (lilpixieofterror!)

1. (post 56) In response to a comment by micah719: ‘The AV was not intended to be used with a dictionary.’

John Reece replied:

Philemon 7 (The Authorized or King James Version)
For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

2. (post 55)In response to a muttering of phrases by Amos ‘….mutter, mutter, mutter, peanut butter…’

LPOT replied: ‘…unicorn….unicorn…’

Time for some road music: ‘Radar Love’ by Golden Earing!

It’s hardly uncommon to find that many modern trolls are also King James Onlyists ( vapid-saliva-spurting-angry-evangelical-ramblings inspired by reading too many exposes dipped in the fire of apparent holy-fire aka. Prof. Ripplinger and Co.) ; and in the following thread in Biblical Languages 301 it seems we have been visited by an almost apocalyptic-demonic tag team of two self-proclaimed prophets who shall stand in the last days. Okay, I’m kidding about the part about prophets standing in the last day, but seriously they are both (Christian-Conservative) and … wait for it! Their usernames are ‘Amos’ and ‘Micah’ (micah719 to be exact) and after the excellent post by the campus theology wizard (well, I think he’s a wizard), suddenly these two bridge trolls began oozing big time.

Here’s RBerman’s classic post: in response to the following question: ‘do you believe the scriptures are inspired? do you consider the King James Bible the scriptures?’ by Amos (not the old testament prophet)

The original manuscripts of the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were inspired by God, yes. They were inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. They are also unavailable. The King James Bible is one in a long line of many attempts to translate copies of those original manuscripts. It was a fine translation effort, but not one in which God supernaturally intervented to ensure the absence of error, so I would not consider the translation to be “inspired.” The three main problems with KJV are (1) we now know that it did not use the best manuscripts of the original languages; (2) It did not always choose the best English word of its day to translate the original words; and (3) Many English words have changed their meaning in the intervening 400 years, so that it doesn’t read to us in the way that its translators would have wanted.

In summary, the King James Bible is a fallible human translation of the inspired Scriptures. To the extent that it was done well, it is the Word of God. But KJV’s translators did not call it “inspired” or “perfect” but only “more exact” than its predecessors, even admitting that it “some imperfections and blemishes may be noted” in their work, explicitly denying that they were inspired in the way that the Apostles were. Do you disagree with the translators of KJV who said that their work was imperfect? If so, on what grounds?

From: Dean John Burgon demolishes Westcott-Hort textual theories ( post 21 )

Actually the truth of the matter was that this thread had gone to sleep in February 2011 and it seems the reply by a nOOb whose credential read as follows: Priest, theologian, Quaker and for religious beliefs : Bene Gesserit Daresay, this nOOb is a comic! Obviously, a fan of the movie “Dune” who wrote in response to RBerman’s classic post:

‘Excellent summation of the majority Christian POV.’ (post 31)

I’m not going to bother to document the responses of Amos and Micah, but if you want a laugh go ahead and follow their comments from post 33 onwards.

Personally, I think it’s a bad case of Bible Thumperitis in the halls of campus.

Update: (2.11.2011) ‘In the middle of muttering prophets of King Jamesism ….’ (refer new post for sequel)

If you are new to this study, I suggest you take DD's advice in the first of her trilogy of new posts to The Preterist Podcast ~ 100% Heresy Free! and return to Episode 25 – For Whom The Bell Tolls before you jump in a drown!

Episode 25 – click here to listen

The New Trilogy of podcasts! Go get ‘em and grow!

Ep.44- Seasons in the Sun
Ep.43- The Sign
Ep.42- And Every Eye Shall See

Listen, Think, Go! Glow! Grow! and sponsor DD!

At post number 1883 (No, it’s not a calender year, but it sure seems as if the trolls of Theology Web Campus are going for record in stupidity) Adrift carefully points out to an agnostic (newbie) who goes by the name of Nathan Poe, the serious flaws in bertaberts’ reasoning. (btw. This is not the first time that bertaberts has been describe as coming up short on logic.)

Its not that they’ve kept their mouth’s shut (quite the opposite actually), its that mainstream media prefers fringe sensationalism over widely and long held scholarly views on the subject. Never mind facts and a sober outlook and understanding of the subject, the average layman wants stuff that’s spicy and controversial.

That said, even the Jesus Seminar doesn’t go as far as bertaberts does. Though he has some strange ideas about Jesus’ burial status, and about Pilate’s personal character, John Dominic Crossan and other Jesus Seminar members don’t deny, for instance, that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant, John Dominic Crossan, HarperCollins, 1992, pp. 372-373
I take it absolutely for granted Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Security about the fact of the crucifixion derives not only from the unlikelihood that Christians would have invented it but also from the existence of two early and independent non-Christian witnesses to it, a Jewish one from 93-94 C.E. and a Roman one from the 110s or 120s C.E.

© source where applicable

Crossan goes on to point out Josephus’ passages in Jewish Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200 and Tacitus’ Annals 15.44.

I have a hard time believing that bertaberts has actually read anything (outside of web links) by the Jesus Seminar if he gets even this so wrong.

However, this is not the big news.

Into the limelight emerges another new t-webber by the name of Polinist who takes it upon himself to redress the opening post by bertaberts and daresay light a match in a tunnel fill of troll stink for yet another 2000 years (that’d be posts) of bertaberts’ trollishness. Who knows maybe his encounter with Doug Shaver over the matter of logic has made him wiser, but to be honest folks, I strongly doubt that is the case. (You Tube Jesus Mythers / Zeitgeist Koolaid Drinkers seldom change their minds about important stuff like historical evidence. )

It’s too much to post up here, but the rebuttal which follows the earlier rebuttal by Rational Gaze (which was hand waved by bertaberts) can be found by clicking on the following links:

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

But seeing as Polinist has been thorough enough to post a Summary and Conclusion post and it’s not that long, here it is:

Summary and Conclusion

Both the authenticity and the historicity of the New Testament documents are firmly established today. The authentic nature and vast amount of the manuscript evidence is overwhelming compared to the classical texts from antiquity. Furthermore, many of the original manuscripts date from within twenty to thirty years of the events in Jesus’ life, that is, from contemporaries and eyewitnesses.

The historicity of these contemporary accounts of Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection is also established on firm historical grounds. The integrity of the New Testament writers is established by the character of the witnesses as well as by the quantity and independent nature of their witness. As to the accuracy of their reports there is support in general from the secular history of the first century and in particular from numerous archaeological discoveries supporting specific details of the New Testament account.

The words of the great classical scholar Sir Fredric Kenyon serve well to summarize the question of reliability of the New Testament documents: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established”

1892 - fm93 points out the pointlessness of feeding trolls, to which Polinist points out that it was not done for bertaberts but for those who are earnest seekers. (thus excluding bertaberts, who is standing in the shadows gnashing and attempts a rebuttal and gets his comeuppance in post 1894.)

Finis x2.

I doubt if this thread’ll go on long enough to facilitate a third volley of rebuttals (to those silly enough to feed TWC’s trolls population, but I guess boredom shows it’s ugly face on internet forums such as this one.)

“Quit!” I say.

Personally, I’d rather watch Sugar Ray Leonard and Robert Duran’s two fights than waste my time reading the sort of tripe that is served up as discussion-argument-debate on this forum, but I’d need to find the DVDs

‘Like it or not Sugar Ray won this fight because he out danced his opponent. Strictly Come Boxing. ‘

(Basically this’ll be the last I’m going to post with regard to bertaberts bloated toad.)

Update: 21 November 2011

After a volley of some really great posting ( post 1901 & 1902 ) by The Polimist (responding to Adrift and Doug Shaver), who it seems has actually waded through nearly 2000 posts of troll poop and anti-troll-poop, the troll-thread starter “bertaberts” is tongue-tied (having not replied to post 1894) and hiding behind the very-weak-troll-speak of Vansmack51 (probably hoping that someone will carry his burned out torch – I don’t think anyone is that stupid), while Chrawnus and Nathan Poe go toe to toe. ( posts 1895 & 1896 )

Two electrifying posts which addresses earlier troll-rants by Bertaberts on this flimsy bloated embarrassment to scholarship is not missed by TWC newbie Polinist. ( refer post 1909 and 1910.)

If you’ve read this thread (something trolls seldom do to avoid dealing with the facts) this response to the thread starter (by now you know the troll’s name):

Bertaberts states: post 1909
‘As to responses, nobody has ever come up with a refutation.’ (This should go in the Guinness Book of Records for repeated stupid comments in a single thread.)

To which Polimist replies:
‘I’ve seen no less than seventy-five total dismantling’s of your fallacious assertions in only the dozen or so pages of this thread that I’ve read thus far; and that’s not even counting my own. And I do understand how you find faux comfort in attempting to change the meanings of what some of these authors from antiquity have penned, or how you’ve attempted to manipulate the logic to meet your world-view, but in the end, do you really think that all of your denial won’t catch up with you?’

I strongly doubt that, for this troll has been hiding behind the arguments of other more obnoxious trolls and even found to be wanting by atheists who are schooled in elementary logic. (refer earlier discussions between bertaberts and Doug Shaver)

He (The Polimist) even manages to shake a pile of dust at long term Atheist-skeptic-dodger “Doug Shaver”, ( post 1908 ) even managing to sideswipe troll-Vansmack51 about his childish one-liners:

Excuse me for even repeating this, but I think the rebuttal is well worth the read:

Vansmack51 states: (post 1906)
‘No one with a brain thinks the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They were written by mythmakers.’

To which Polimist replied:

Let’s see here, your crass and immature comment above is not only lacking any forethought, but it is self-stultifying as well. “No one with a brain thinks”… That has just become a classic oxymoron for Troll-speak, and will make a good example for “how not to reply in a conversation”, or “how not to win an argument”, or even “how to prove you lack common English language skills”.

So, down to the facts; I have provided the scholarly opinion from the world of academia (not mine), and you’ve provided nothing more than the common third-grader type retort. Maybe you should have said ‘ne-ner-ne-ner-ne-ner’, and been done with it. Is trolling the forum, and adding absolutely nothing to the cause the best you can do?

Once again it’s fm93 who sums up the agenda of TWC trolls, in fact internet trolls in general when he states in post 1911: ‘….(insert trolls alias)….are deathly allergic to facts, logic, honesty and consistency. Introducing any one of the four concepts to them is like introducing the North pole of a magnet to the North pole of another magnet–instantly repelled.’

Update: 18 December 2011
Polinist dealt out the soundest tongue lashing upon triune-troll-infestation (Tassman-bertaberts-Vansmack51) on what has got to be the longest and most boring thread ever. I daresay Polinist is new to the whole discussion-argument-debate routine with regard to a) identifying trolls and b) starving them.
Though, I have to commend Polinist for his very fluid deliveries and excellent grammar and argumentation, I’m quite certain that it is wasted on this three drooling trolls. The stage by stage dismantling of their weak arguments was certainly a wonder to behold and certainly one that might be worth returning to for some of the prize nuggets he delivered to those who clearly have zero interest in earnest d.a.d. So, if you can manage to dodge the troll-pong ‘n poop; the dismantling begins in 1928 (Where bertaberts – who you remember got a sound few lessons in logic from Doug Shaver, attempts to teach Polinist, Crititical Thinking? ) and fizzles out in 2244 (Where Polinist finally gets the point that Vansmack51 is a clueless youtube troll who got snagged by the Infidel Guy vs Prof. Bart Ehrman video.) (Any guess but that might well be the same year that the human race has wiped itself out ‘if dogs run free’ )

'Is is possible to educate a troll?'

Post 1432:
There are a few scholars who hold that view but as Professor Bart Ehrman pointed on in his radio interview with Infidel Guy …. ‘I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus ….’

I wish he would write that book.

Jesus existed. Do you?