May 20 Part 5

Ok Part 5 of May 20th’s replies to the responses that day from Crackpipe christian.

Crackpipe really can’t have much of a life to have sent all these in one day.

Oh well let’s get this over with so at some point I can start writing that article with all the upgraded “Jesus is meaningless info”.
Crackpipe writes….

“Tacitus II: BB(s)J kicks Bart Ehrman’s ass!!
BB(s)J is back with a reply!

As usual I will address ONLY the on topic points unless he goes so far off base that I want to point it out.

There is a lot of stuff that warrants no reply so I don’t include those. But by all means go read BB(s)J’s post and see if I missed anything.”

This is of course another way of saying that Crackpipe is going to deflect what he has no defense against because he is a cowardly time waster.
Crackpipe continues….

“I will not, however, reargue my points if it isn’t needed.”

Of course he doesn’t.

– Especially if I’m showing exactly how the “evidence” of Jesus isn’t evidence at all and is completely meaningless.

– Avoidance and deflection go hand and hand.

-That however doesn’t seem to be an option for me since I have to repeat everything several times because Crackpipe keeps saying the same stupidity over and over.

– Weird that Crackpipe is attempting to come across as someone who is so important he feels compelled to not repeat himself when he keeps saying the same things over and over.
Crackpipe continues….

“But two interesting things you will read: 1) tries to play off an argument he made, only to use it again. 2) shows us he doesn’t read everything he links.

Let’s get to it!!”

How about how Crackpipe repeatedly says how the “time issue” is not an issue and that somehow crackpipe implies that he showed how 80 years later or 200 years later doesn’t make a stories of a magical omnipotent hippy mangod irrelevant.

> Crackpipe of course did not show that and simply showed how full of crap he is and christians in general since he is just being a typical apologist.
Crackpipe continues….

“YAAY! Another article of christianity’s last hope, Beercan christian. With more projection, deflection, delusion, lying, dismissals, moving the goalposts and telling us that he is proving things when he clearly isn’t.”

Okay, let’s see what he has got!

He posted some new links to argue against Tacitus, then says this:
” The fact that what I put in my article was quite sufficient enough and that Beercan caused me to look up more demonstrations of how Tacitus’ quotes were meaningless and non-credible, really helped me out.”

Yep, this is true. The new “Evidence of Jesus is meaningless article 2” article sure will be good.

– Can hardly wait to get through all the responses and then the list of all the lies, then get the article done.
Crackpipe continues….

“If his argument was so great, why did it need help?”

Because I underestimated the stupidity, the desperation and the overall necessity that Crackpipe has to waste other peoples time.
Crackpipe continues….

“(And why does he change tactics, as we will see).”

No idea what Crackpipe means but if that is the case as he says and I “changed tactics” then my guess is that it was because Crackpipe is too stupid to understand simple things, so I was attempting to show him a different perspective.

– Obviously if Crackpipe is still saying this, then he was too stupid and it didn’t work.
Crackpipe continues….

“The new links he provides are for an old, and unpopular argument held primarily by Mythers: Tacitus was forged.

It has failed to take hold in the past, and most likely won’t in the near future. For sure, though it won’t go away.

Scholars KNOW of this argument, and well…reject it.

Except that Crackpipe fails to see that there are some mythicists who do give it credit and that this is just one of many reasons that make this evidence of Jesus from Tacitus meaningless.

– The fact that it is a possible forgery makes it just more non-credible, but the other reasons hold up pretty good.

– Either way it is just hearsay.
Crackpipe continues….

“This issue actually came up in Bart Ehrman’s new book in Jesus, and he took some guff for it too:

Even Carrier, who doesn’t believe Jesus existed at all, finds the forgery claim “highly unlikely.”

That’s TWO non-Christian history scholars…and in fact it’s damn near MOST history scholars. As quite evident in the above dialogue…”

There of course have been more people coming forward now and giving the forgery concept credibility, but it’s funny how Crackpipe said he wasn’t going to repeat himself but keeps going on and on about the forgery.

– The fact still remains though that these Jesus passages of Tacitus weren’t discovered, or referenced til over a 1000 years later.

– Just some of many reasons why Tacitus isn’t credible as being any evidence of Jesus even if it wasn’t forged, but Crackpipe will of course continue to dwell on the forgery issue.

> This is fine.

> This is still not evidence of Jesus for several other reasons.

– Crackpipe was great to remind us of world renowned historian and scholar Richard Carrier who doesn’t believe Jesus existed at all.
Crackpipe continues….

“Funny though how he tries to postulate TWO possible people that would have forged it.”

E, again and newcomer: Sulpcius Severus”

Crackpipe can’t deny how suspicious they are no matter how many times he says otherwise.
Crackpipe continues….

“So who is this guy?

Chances it was him: slim to none.”

Hey I’m simply saying it’s one of many reasons that this Tacitus reference isn’t credible.

– The similarities cannot be denied, no matter how many times Crackpipe says it.

– I guess I’ll just list the website with the multiple arguments again even though Crackpipe will simply just ignore it, but that’s his fault, not mine.

– Crackpipe can pretend he didn’t read it all he wants.

– Again though, either way it’s hearsay even if it’s a forgery or not.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now we will see BB(s)J can’t get enough of this forgery issue..

Beercan continues….
“In short, Tacitus was no dummy and took great pride in getting this accurate. And more importantly HAD the means and want to check his facts.
In short: he didn’t make shit up nor should we expect him to write anything he didn’t think was a reliable source.”

More interesting that this wasn’t til the 14th century that Tacitus’s quotes about christianity were even mentioned when so many christians would have jumped on the chance if they knew, such as Eusebius. Interesting that he never did, but was fully aware of Tacitus’ writings.”

Sure is suspicious. Yep.

– You gotta wonder why someone like Eusebius never said anything when he he made his life exposing and forging evidence of Jesus for his master Constantine.

– He had full access to Tacitus’ works, but nope, no references of Jesus exposed by him.

– Not til over a 1000 years later.

> This is like discovering in the year 3101 AD in Jesse Ventura’s possessions, having George W Bush and Dick Cheney’s personal diaries with full confessions to 911 and Ventura never said anything.
Crackpipe continues….

“It’s not me saying Tacitus was a great historian, HISTORY SCHOLARS do. I’m just taking them at their word.

Guess BB(s)J thinks they must be idiots.”

Yawn. Never said that, or implied that they were idiots.

– If Tacitus only had hearsay and common knowledge references then that’s all he had, or anyone else.

– This includes all these people:

Seneca (4BCE-65CE)
Pliny the Elder (23-79CE)
Suetonius (70-140CE)
Martial (38-104 CE)
Plutarch (46-120CE)
Justus of Tiberius (1st Century)
Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE)
Quintilian (35-100CE)
Lucanus (39-65CE)
Epictetus (55-135CE)
Silius Italicus (28-103CE)
Statius (45-96CE)
Ptolemy (90-168CE)
Valerius Maximus (1st Century)
Arrian (86-160CE)
Petronius (27-66CE)
Paterculus (19BCE-31CE)
Appian (95-165CE)
Pompon Mela (?-45CE)
Quintius Curtius (1st Century)
Valerius Flaccus (?-90CE)
Favorinus (80-160CE)
Phaedrus (15BCE-50CE)
Damis (1st Century)
Columella (4-70CE)
Dio Chrysostom (40-120CE)
Appion of Alexandria (95-165CE)

The above were taken from Michael Shelock’s book “I am Christ”.
Crackpipe continues….

“I like this next one:
Beercan continues….
“So let’s see what BB(s)J has to say about this:
a) This only has Tacitus talking about the superstition that christians believed, NOTHING ELSE.
I continue wonder if BB(s)J reads what he talks about, or doesn’t fully comprehend what he reads, or just assumes he knows and needs not look any further…

As the link says, there’s way more to what Tacitus wrote. Not just in Annals but in his other works as well. The small part regarding Christ’s crucifixion, found in Annals, is almost equal to an aside.”

Now we will see BB(s)J appears t have forgotten what he wrote.

– Since when was I talking about ALL of Tacitus’s work? I wasn’t.

Didn’t say you did. But I am taking you at YOUR words.

Remember you FIRST said: “wrote a document which mentions how stupid and crazy he thought christians were, mentions “Christus” and talks about Pontius Pilot killing Jesus.”

Then to argue against the document: “This only has Tacitus talking about the superstition that christians believed, NOTHING ELSE.”

“This only..”

This what? This document?

You were talking about the “document”. Annals is far more than a document, as I showed. I just added that he wrote more stuff too, which will come into play very soon. So keep an eye out.

The words you chose to use conveyed that Annals was just document that ONLY had Tacitus writing about superstition, etc.

If that’s not what you meant to say maybe choose better words.”

So Crackpipe choses to nit-pick about petty things when he clearly knows what I’m talking about.

– He knows that I meant “what Tacitus was claimed to have written”

– Well that’s not surprising since Crackpipe has no arguments that stand up, or give any so called “evidence” of Jesus any credibility.

– Crackpipe is of course wasting time as he always does, which isn’t surprising.
Crackpipe continues….

“He then goes on to try an use an analogy to show why Tacitus wasn’t a good historian.

BB(s)J thinks current historians are stupid I guess, for saying Tac was a good one…”

No idea what Crackpipe means, but whatever. Guess we’ll wait for him to explain it.
Crackpipe continues….

“Tacitus is no friend of the Christian. Yet BB(s)J wants us to believe that Tacitus is “just repeating” what Christians are saying and that Tacitus would use Christian sources at all, and ONLY, for his material.
Tacitus also says “one of our procurators” when referring to Pilate. Note “our.”
Does BB(s)J truly want us to buy into the idea that Tacitus knows about Pilate ONLY via Christian sources and wouldn’t use Roman sources?”

“LOL Actually that’s not quite what I’m saying there Crackpipe, well kinda actually, but the problem is that that wasn’t my point.”

“My point is that this ISN’T EVIDENCE for many reasons and the fact that there’s nothing proving otherwise regarding where Tacitus got his info is one of them.”

And here is where BB(s)J shows he doesn’t fully read everything he links.

Um…actually there is BB(s)J.

See because Tac wrote other stuff. And in these other writings (including Annals) he cites sources!

If you bothered to read the Wikipedia link you cite, you would know this.

You will find a section called “The sources of Tacitus”.

IF you read that section you will find:”Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and theacta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors’ speeches, such as Tiberius andClaudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work.”

Yawnity yawn.

– No mention of Jesus the man.

– Just common knowledge that everyone knew.

– This is no different than Bart Ehrman telling his kids about the Easter bunny.

> Doesn’t prove the Easter bunny.

> Easter bunny is common knowledge, but a myth and a story.

– Speaking of Bart Ehrman again, I wonder if Crackpipe knows that Ehrman agrees with me that Tacitus was just using hearsay about Jesus.

– Crackpipe might be shocked to know that Ehrman wrote that in his book “Did Jesus Exist?”
Crackpipe continues….

“Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticusand Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information fromexitus illustrium virorum.”

Since there are no records in any of those of Jesus, or anywhere else and nothing is credible, then there is no evidence that he didn’t just use christian hearsay and their delusional word of mouth.

– Therefore…. no evidence and no credibility.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then if we look at ToC (Tacitus on Christ page) we read:Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator.[42][43]His writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was.[5][44] His characterization of “Christian abominations” may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharistrituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism by Christians.[44][45]

Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[53]Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than aprocurator.[54] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about “Christus” and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[55] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[23]”

So Crackpipe just admitted that there is no evidence and that nothing that Tacitus said was credible as a source for Jesus.

– Great job Crackpipe.

– Would you just give up and at least jusf become a deist, preferably an agnostic, or Atheist, but someone who at least knows that christianity and ALL religions are lies.
Crackpipe continues….

“And:”Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that “So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless”.[56] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[57] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome’s preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: “Tacitus’s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius’s reign.”[58]”

If you bothered to actually read the links you provided…

However, if you want to continue to argue that Tac is just using Christian sources by all means show us YOUR evidence.”

You see this is the problem…

– Crackpipe doesn’t get that because of all the circumstances nothing is credible and that this source is meaningless as evidence that isn’t just common knowledge.

– I really don’t know why it’s so hard for Crackpipe to figure out.

> Oh yeah, because Crackpipe is a brainwashed slave of a lie.

> Makes sense now why his judgement is so flawed.

> Also, reminding Crackpipe that Bart Ehrman thought that Tacitus was just using hearsay.
Crackpipe continues….

“So that’s why I said:
“Highly unlikely given what we know about how Tacitus operated and his “love” of Christians.”

So Crackpipe is now saying that just because Tacitus didn’t like christians and thought they were idiots, that he wouldn’t just be repeating what the silly twits believed.”

Not just me, as we read above…”

As we read above, this is still as meaningless as evidence now as it was then.
Crackpipe continues….

“You did read it right BB(s)J? I quoted for you to save you time…”

And? You made no point, so so what?
Crackpipe continues….

“But BB(s)J knocks down the scholars with his well researched and supported claim:
“- This isn’t hard to put as a likely scenerio whatsoever.
– It especially isn’t hard to believe if it amused him and he didn’t give 2 farts and thought their story so ridiculous that he just assumed everyone reading it would be just as amused and knew the joke.”

Yep…given what we know about Tac, this would be EXACTLY what he would do!”

Yawn again.

– Still isn’t evidence of anything.

– Still nothing that proves Jesus was even a real person, or even just a meaningless nobody like Crackpipe keeps saying about the “scholars”.
Crackpipe continues….

“BB(s)J – 1
Historians – 0

Then BB(s)J just makes more irrelevant analogies…”

Suuuure I do.


– Yet Crackpipe still makes in no way anything could be considered evidence of Jesus.

– Crackpipe still has not shown us how he isn’t brainwashed and refuses to say how he became religious in the first place.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, finally something.

I said: “Most people WOULD and DO understand this IS a reference to Jesus, BB(s)J tries to argue it isn’t:
– “Christus” means “messiah”, or “anointed one”.
– This just means that “they followed some guy”.

BB(s)J offers this rebuttal:
“Except that….
– It could be based on a forgery.
> I showed multiple reasons why here:
– It could be talking about the simple common knowledge about christians that everyone knew about at that time that Crackpipe is trying to make us forget.
– So evidence of nothing for Crackpipe AGAIN!”
Crackpipe continues…..

“So I guess BB(s)J now admits that yes Christ is synonymous with Jesus and thus Jesus was named in the writing – of which before he claimed Jesus wasn’t named.”

Seriously what is wrong with Crackpipe? What a dummy!

– First off it’s not Jesus, or “christ” and the actual word is “chrestus” or one of many others.

– Simply means that Tacitus was aware of their mythical leader.

> From hearsay.
Crackpipe continues….

“But the best is yet to come: What differerence does this definition of “christ” make if it’s just a forged document?
– What difference does it make if he is just documenting common knowledge that everybody knew at that time in HISTORY?
> This is no different than a historian in the 80′s documenting that the band “The Thompson Twins” had 3 members, not 2 and one of them was a girl and they looked nothing alike. (Common knowledge at that time).

Not even going to insult my readers and point out the obvious here…”

So no response to any of the similarities?

– Not surprising because my comparisons show exactly how this reference of “christ” is completely meaningless.
Crackpipe continues….

“Me – “So by the time of Tacitus’ writings (and well before) it was well established that “Christ” was synonymous with “Jesus.” That is, it was common knowledge.”

BB(s)J Yep. That is what I said. ;)”


– Crackpipe just doesn’t get it that this doesn’t specifically talk about “Jesus” the man which he wasn’t even called yet til the 1600’s.

– Just talks about the belief that delusional crazy christians had.
Crackpipe continues….

“So can we disregard this: c) If he actually had documented verification of the execution then he would have also verified Jesus NAME, whatever that was.

I say yep!

As BB(s)J just agreed Christ = Jesus thus Jesus was verified BY NAME.”

He is of course talking about the character that christians believe in.

– What is Crackpipe’s point?

– Not evidence = not evidence

– Just hearsay is just hearsay.
Crackpipe continues….

“So when he goes on his silly rant about how he NOW agrees Tac WAS referencing Jesus like this:

“> I thought he was talking about Bababooey or maybe Fred the elephant boy.”

Ok so I think I see the communication problem here, so let’s fix it.

– WE know who the fictional leader of christianity is NOW in modern times.

> We call him “Jesus”.

> We have lots of fictional stories on him.

> Back then media was very limited.

> Those outside the circle of christianity had to be told about what the crazy christians believed.
Crackpipe continues….

“THEN changes tactics to argue the forged issue…

Okay, let’s find something else to reply to…

Oh, this great commentary on ancient history:
-” There was no video, audio, internet, newspapers, radio, or trustworthy media of any kind.”

No. Words. Needed. LOL!!!”

No words needed on how there was no audio, video, internet, newspapers, radio, or trustworthy media of any kind?

– So Crackpipe is simply dismissing the point and attempting to make the point
sound silly rather than address it.

– This again shows how Crackpipe just deflects and avoids rather than address and respond.

– Typical.
Crackpipe continues….

“But it gets better:
“- NOTHING was reliable, or trustworthy back then, but again let Crackpipe’s buddy Bart explain how things worked back then.”

Goto the last 3 minutes of this 9 minute clip:

Yep. Was a pretty good clip I suggested.
Crackpipe continues….

“I like this part too:
-” How would Crackpipe even have any idea what is genuine?
> What is reliable?
> What is trustworthy?
> What is fake?
> What is forged?
> What has an agenda?
> What is plagarism of another story?

Since all I have been doing is relaying what HISTORIANS claim we can assume that BB(s)J doesn’t think historian would have an answer to these questions either.”

So ANOTHER demonstration of deflection Crackpipe makes.

– Notice this trend of Crackpipe’s about how he just deflects and avoids EVERYTHING.
Crackpipe continues….

“But THIS takes the cake!!’
“> Never put any effort into seeing how something is unreliable and untrustworthy if it is something that doesn’t go along with proving Jesus, or conflicts with supporting your faith only religion that makes no sense.”

Guess he forgot the pieces of evidence that I said I don’t and wouldn’t use because I don’t find them compelling…”

Guesss Crackpipe forgets that none of the pieces of “evidence” that he doesn’t find compelling are any more convincing than the others.

– Guess Crackpipe doesn’t realize that he doesn’t use the same standards on himself about other gods that he does to the ones in In his own religion.

– If Crackpipe used the same reasoning about why he doesn’t believe in other gods that he does about Jesus, then he would see that Jesus is nothing more than a delusion.

> This goes for Yahweh too, which Crackpipe somehow also believes in.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then BACK to the forgery issue…Man, like a dog finding a new bone!!

Let’s see if we can find something new….

– “And AGAIN even if the lines about christians and christus were real….
> Where is all the other evidence if as you claim that Tacitus was using his “Roman sources” as you say?”

Well, since I gave you the evidence and quoted it so you didn’t have to do much work on your end…Since you obviously didn’t read the links you posted in their entirety.”

Give your head a smack Crackpipe.

– We don’t have access to these claimed “sources”.

– If we had access to these claimed sources then THEY would be the evidence of Jesus, or record of him.

– Since we DON’T have access to those sources, then we only have access to the assumption or FACT that everything Tacitus wrote in regards to Jesus and christianity was nothing more than common knowledge.

– This is the equivalent to someone writing a book about clouds and simply writing about things that are common knowledge.

>> Clouds make rain

>> Clouds are fluffy looking

>> That’s basically all the book discloses.

– Scientific equipment with analysis of clouds would be different and with historical photographic and scientific analysis over decades from the results of climate change and global warming IS EVIDENCE!

– A bunch of people playing the telephone game of hearsay 2000 years ago, 90 years later, who weren’t there, is just MEANINGLESS HEARSAY!

– Documentation of many people, who were there and claimed to have witnessed certain things, that other people also claimed to have seen and verified each others claims of being there and having scientifically and historically backed FACTS, is something different.

> These records do not exist.

– AGAIN showing why all this in the documents of Tacitus are MEANINGLESS as “evidence”.

(more great stuff to put in the new article)
Crackpipe continues….

“Can I assume you’ll retract your statement that there’s “no evidence” that Tac used sources?

I’m guessing I shouldn’t hold my breath.”

This is again evidence of one of 2 things.

1) Another example of religion blinding people from simple and obvious things.

> It’s so obvious for anyone with half a brain to see how and why Tacitus’ writings and sources are NOT evidence of anything.

> Since we can’t confirm what these “sources” said then we can’t confirm them as souces for Jesus.

2) Religious apologist dishonesty.

> If Crackpipe isn’t being stupid, then he is fully aware of how and why no part of what Tacitus, or the fact that he is said to have had sources, can possibly be interpretted as “evidence”.

> This means that Crackpipe is dishonestly manipulating people by being misleading.

> Personally I say Crackpipe falls under #1 and is just stupid.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then AFTER We suffer BB(s)J’s rant that he KNEW that Christ = Jesus and this KNEW that Tac WAS talking about Jesus he says this again!!!
> Interesting that Pilate’s name is mentioned (because he is written about in the fictional gospel stories that people were brainwashing others with) however Jesus’ name (whatever it was at that time) was not.

Guess he forgot he knew…

“I thought he was talking about Bababooey or maybe Fred the elephant boy.”

Ok so more misleading dishonesty from Crackpipe.

So let’s clear some things up:

– I know who the mythical character “Jesus” is.

– Jesus didn’t even have the name Jesus until the 1600s.

– I live 1900 years later and a lot has changed since then including giving the character in the story a name instead of a title.

– Since 1900 years later many things were changed and added to the story such as the fictional history and life of the “anointed one”.

– All Tacitus has said to us was what was common knowledge back then.

> Stupid idiot brainwashed christians had a leader.

> They called the leader “christi-name”

> However that meaning could have the potential to be something else, as explained.

Still definitely not evidence in any way shape or form.
Crackpipe continues….

“Ah there was a statement about under which conditions he would respect me more..,

Yeah, BB(s)J YOUR respect toward me is top priority.

Ok that is a lie that Crackpipe is saying here about respecting him.

– I didn’t say that I would respect Crackpipe if he followed these conditions, I said he would respect HIMSELF.

Here is a copy paste of what I said:

“> What Crackpipe is not willing to accept is that there is no truth to his entire religion, he is wasting his time and making a fool of himself, that all the thousands of religions on Earth are no different than Crackpipe’s, that no religion makes any truth, or has any evidence.

> Mostly though, what Crackpipe can’t accept and refuses to accept is that he is brainwashed and needs to free himself from the brainwashing.

>Why would anyone WANT to be brainwashed and be the slave of a lie?

> If Crackpipe would simply realize that there really is no evidence of christianity and that it is just a lie and a scam that is only believed because of brainwashing, then I’m sure he would respect himself a lot more.”

That is what I said, so Crackpipe AGAIN is just wasting time.

– It really is all that apologists can do is waste peoples time and distract us from the truth.

– Since there is no truth to any religion EVER, then all they can do is try to distract people from the truth, or do their best to make them ignore it.
Crackpipe continues….

“Guess you failed to grasp that I don’t worry or care what you think about me.”

That’s fine. I insult Crackpipe for these reasons:

1) Because Crackpipe needs to have these things pointed out to him and I’m actually doing him a favor and he needs to be told in a way that will make him see that I’m serious.

2) These stupid and dishonest things Crackpipe says really need to be discouraged.

3) Crackpipe really is being a stupid pathetic brainwashed imbecile.

4) Crackpipe sickens and disgusts me and I really can’t be nice about certain things.

> Crackpipe is an obnoxious douche.

> He’s really creepy.

> Crackpipe is defending the most evil and harmful thing on the planet.

> Crackpipe is encouraging other people to waste their lives for nothing and help destroy the world.
Crackpipe continues….

“I’m married. That means in my life I only have ONE person I need to concern myself with how they feel and think about me. ;)”

I don’t believe it.

– If it is possibly true though then that truly disgusts and angers me that Crackpipe might someday brainwash and indoctrinate children and make them as stupid and insane as him.

– People who brainwash and indoctrinate children are child abusers and indoctrinating children should be illegal.

> If children weren’t allowed to be force fed religion until they were 18 then we would indeed be living in a much different world.

> Child indoctrination is truly despicable and is the equivalent of “mind rape”.

> As I show:
Crackpipe continues….

“But forward we move!!

Ah, but BB(s)J might take on Bart Ehrman here:

Crackpipe continues….
“Well, as I have still not used one Christian source to make my point I still won’t here when I quote Bart Ehrman on Tacitus: “Tacitus’s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius’s reign.”

Okay, so I’m quoting Bart here. This is what Bart said about Tacitus.

So let’s see what BB(s)J does:

” Does Bart tell us what Roman sources that Tacitus used that wasn’t simple common knowledge? No.
– Did Tacitus say that he knew Jesus, saw him crucified and come back from the dead? No.
– Does Tacitus give us any evidence saying he was a witness to anything such as a “miracle” or anything saying he believed Jesus existed and not just repeating what people he thought were idiots believed? No.
– Does Tacitus simply repeat common knowledge that everyone knew at the time and imply that he thought christians were morons? YES!”
In other words, BB(s)J is saying Bart’s wrong.”

Actually Crackpipe is wrong again.

– Bart clearly says in his book that Tacitus got his information from christian hearsay.

– If there is documentation that Tacitus got his sources from Bart does not say.

– I don’t hear anyone saying they are aware of these sources either still existing and if they do exist then what it is exactly that they say that Tacitus might be basing his info on them.

– We need our information on things that actually make sense regarding The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
Crackpipe continues….

“Fair enough but Bart IS an actual history scholar.
BB(s)J is not.

BB(s)J – 2
Actual historians – 0”

Again, Bart says in his book “Did Jesus Exist” that Tacitus got his information from christian hearsay sources.
Crackpipe concludes….

“And that’s about all that was new, relevant, or fun to read.

Though by all means go and read the whole thing if you wish…don’t want to be accused of hiding something from you!

If you do find something that you feel I need to address, pop it in the comments and I’ll take a look.”

Sure, let’s do that. Lookin at the article

– Crackpipe never addressed how the earliest copies of the manuscripts of Tacitus’ work on Jesus weren’t til over 1000 years later in the 15 century.

– Crackpipe can explain WHY Tacitus would call him “Christus” if Tacitus didn’t believe he was the “Christus”?

> He would just be saying “their stupid fictional leader”.

– Crackpipe has not said that it isn’t impossible that Tacitus was only talking about common knowledge and just hearsay since he doesn’t tell us anything new.

– Crackpipe never talks about how Eusebius who was a collector and known forger for Constantine and christianity never mentions the Tacitus references.

> Funny how Crackpipe thinks it’s so believable that Jesus is the omnipotent master of the universe, but not strange that Eusebius could have forged things.

> There is a reason things are called “forgeries”.

> Last I checked though, when someone made a forgery it was made to not be able to tell something was a forgery.

– Crackpipe also never addressed what he thought of Buddha and if he believed Buddha was a real person, or if Buddha was divine.

> Also what conclusions Crackpipe came about Buddha and WHY?

> Why isn’t Crackpipe a buddhist?

– Why would Tacitus call him “Christus” if he didn’t believe he was a “christus”?

> That makes no sense.

> That’s like me calling Crackpipe “intelligent unbrainwashed one”, why would I?

– I really would like to know why Crackpipe doesn’t believe the Joseph Smith/ golden plates story, or the Mohammed/ koran story?

> Why christianity and Jesus over Moe and Joe?

– I also wanted to know what Crackpipe thought of my Mithras example as if someone asked Crackpipe about Mithras and what exactly Crackpipe would tell then?

> Also if the way Crackpipe explained Mithras in a few short sentences would be much different than the way Tacitus explained christianity?

– I also wanted to hear from Crackpipe what the difference was between the faith that this completely meaningless non-evidence of Tacitus was actually evidence and beyween Linus and his faith of The Great Pumpkin?

– I would like to know from Crackpipe what significance he thought of the Tacitus references when he can’t deny how Tacitus thought christianity was absurd (if the references weren’t forged).

> Wouldn’t Tacitus maybe of thought that christianity was true if Tacitus actually had evidence?

> Did Crackpipe ever think of this?

– Does Crackpipe think that splashing doves blood on someone will cure leprocy?

> Because we read that in Leviticus does that make it real?

– Crackpipe still has to explain how Jesus sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself makes any sense?

– I guess another thing that would be nice to know from Crackpipe are his “standards” of how long something has to be before something is “non-credible”?

– Crackpipe never told us why when I said “- There was no video, audio, internet, newspapers, radio, or trustworthy media of any kind” that wasn’t worthy of a response.

> How is this not significant?

> If none of those things were present then what forms were there to ACTUALLY show anything?

– Crackpipe can address the fact about when I said “There were thousands of gods and thousands of religions all over the world that were made up by superstitious, gullible people who made things up to explain the world.”

> So what makes christianity any more believable than any of those religions?

– Are Heracles and Zeus real because Tacitus wrote about them too?

> Yes? No? Why? Why not?

– How is Crackpipe’s bringing up Alexander the great significant to him if he says it, but my bringing up Joseph Smith and Mohammed are not?

– Crackpipe could have explained to us what it is that’s so great about being the slave of a lie?

– Crackpipe never addressed the fact about “if it wasn’t for Constantine then christianity wouldn’t exist”.

> Relevant because christianity would have died out like all the thousands of other religions if it wasn’t for Constantine and his propaganda stooge Eusebius.