vincentferrer wrote:Lets be clear.
vincentferrer wrote:ASMarques stepped outside the bounds of Holocaust subject matter to denounce all religions as bogus.
Not exactly. Religions that do not make bogus history mandatory (yes, there are a few, but then too few to mention) and have no historical connection with the "Holocaustianism" topic of the thread did not concern me.
vincentferrer wrote:Great way to distract people and change the focus of a board. Hmmm.
I see. Dozens of dead men walking around is no distraction at all. Refuting them is. Hmmmmmm.
vincentferrer wrote:Why ASMarques is taken serious is beyond me.
Could it be because I don't put my faith in zombies?
vincentferrer wrote:The holocaust is an event or alleged event that is recent, and we are still at a point in time where actual forensic evidence can refute the myth. There is no question: Jews were not gassed.
Of course there is a question. The question is "if Jews were gassed, how was that possible, unless miracles happen?"
It's very much the same as in, er, "if Hercules was literally put up there as a constellation, how was that possible, unless miracles happen?"
That sort of thing, if you see what I mean. You don't have to stop at Hercules, and I don't have to tell you what the answer is.
vincentferrer wrote:It is quite a leap to then say the first leader of the largest religious body on earth today, who lived 2000 years ago, never lived.
Not really, unless you decide the size of the "religious body" reflects the truth of the creed. By the way, ever tried that idea "Holocaust"-wise? Perhaps the proximity in time would even help your cause. I'm sure you will also subscribe to the idea that the lightning growth of religions and the way they rise to political control of empires in general should also be used to measure the truth about them.
vincentferrer wrote:Well, in the USA we have presidential succession, so we know who the presidents were right back to George Washington.
Yes. His Excellency even had a name and it wasn't Mr. Primo Prez Esq....
vincentferrer wrote:The same holds true with Popes, right back to Peter.
Of course it doesn't (Pius I, probably one of the earliest guys you can possibly call a bishop of Rome comes around the mid-2nd century). Anyway, as long as short, unjustified, off-the-cuff assertions of a credulous nature will be (understandably) tolerated as not too much off-topic, while longish, rather laboriously justified skeptical replies to them (also understandably) will not, there is not much that I can do to counter your dead men walking, is it?
vincentferrer wrote:Yet the second I presented proof of the existence of the person Jesus, to answer the person who initially came on here and began denying his existence, the thread is edited.
I'm not sure I saw it and would like to comment on it. We were talking of old Daniel's prophecies that according to you worked like Swiss clocks. As you must have noticed, my replies are also gone, so here is my suggestion: if you're really interested in the existence of the person Jesus, use the private mail to send your proof to me and I will then reply by the same means.