Saturday, May 17, 2014

Ok folks. Here we are dissecting another blog response of Crackpipe christian.

More of the same from the dynamo of denial. The man who kisses his imaginary friends butt like no other. The guy who never checks his spelling and writes like he’s 8 years old but claims to be great with words.

Ladies and gentleman I present to you…

Crackpipe christian.

Crackpipe writes…..

“BB(s)J vs. Jesus Part 7 – Pliny the Younger and the Definition of “purported!”
We are getting close to the end of our journey through the “meaningless” evidence for Jesus.

However, as we are discovering: BB(s)J gives us very little in the way of actual argument against these writings. (Even on the one I agree with him on).”

And let the LYING begin then.

– In what universe do I not give any arguments?

– Oh yeah, in Crackpipe’s fictional world in his mind where anything that says Crackpipe is living a lie is simply ignored and said to not be an argument.
Crackpipe continues…

“He did try to respond, which you can check out in this post:”

Yep. Really gotcha good in that one. I have to admit.
Crackpipe continues….

“7) PLINY THE YOUNGER 61-113 AD wrote a letter to the Emperor and mentioned christians.
Look under XCVI, XCVII and XCVIII for the specific letter:

This really is mind-blowing that anybody would use this as evidence, but being dishonestly misleading really is what apologetics is all about isn’t it?

Well, considering that this is another hostile source, it will be interesting to see how BB(s)J says Christians mislead with it.

Well also according to Crackpipe there really isn’t a big deal on time limits of things so if I start telling people how Jesus doesn’t exist since I’m a hostile witness, then that should count as evidence too.

So since I make fun of christians regarding how crazy, brainwashed and stupid they are, that apparently is supposed to be “evidence” of Jesus… according to Crackpipe that is. Brilliant.
Crackpipe continues….

“Again, people just want to hear what they want to hear and the people who use these evidences have been told for years why these claims are meaningless, but they insist on using them anyways. Surprise surprise. Shame.

Yeah, like that idiot Bart Ehrman, right? Or the majority of historical scholars – damn them for misleading and using any of this shit for evidence for Jesus – you tell them BB(s)J! They should all have to give back their doctorates for such lies!

Well let’s just go over the Pliny facts again and we’ll see how credible and reliable the Pliny stuff is then won’t we?

– There’s a great list above of a bunch of really Jesus busting stuff, but since Crackpipe is of course too stupid to open any links and loves to waste peoples time I guess I’ll have to list them.

> Never mentions Jesus and just talks about crazy christians.

> Good chance of being a forgery.

> Born 29 years after Jesus supposedly died so everything Pliny would have heard would be hearsay and Pliny was not there and never knew Jesus.

– Even if you completely remove the fact that it might have been a forgery out of the equation, just proving that there were crazy brainwashed christians does not count as evidence for Jesus.

> We have evidence people believed in other gods.

> Because we know that people believed in greek gods and many countless others DOES NOT prove that the greek gods existed.

> This is what Crackpipe is saying is that this is somehow “evidence” of Jesus.

– Even more though, Crackpipe is using his “well Bart Ehrman thinks so” argument.

> I think Crackpipe confuses Bart just thinking it isn’t a forgery with this actually being proof of anything.

> I really am waiting on Crackpipe to tell us how evidence of crazy christians is evidence of a historical hippy rabbi that could easily be based on delusion, brainwashing, misinformation, or trickery?
Crackpipe continues…

“Enough fun – let’s see how BB(s)J smashes this one to pulp!

a) He never wrote this letter til 110-112 AD.
– This is 79 years later.
– Not even in the 1st century.

I am seriously considering making a BB(s)J drinking game…broken record. Dealt with this issue, let’s move on.”

At what point did those points I listed not make the Pliny quotes completely irrelevant, non-credible and unreliable?

– In what way did they start to somehow be credible and not even more non-credible after listing even more reasons?

– Crackpipe in no way whatsoever made these points irrelevant and in no way did Crackpipe make anything about Pliny the younger’s words evidence of anything more than crazy christians.

– It doesn’t matter how many times Crackpipe tries to use the jedi-mind trick on us, it doesn’t work.

Also, I know he means “crackpipe smoking game”.
Crackpipe continues….

“b) He wasn’t born til almost 30 years AFTER Jesus’s supposed death!

Got anything else?”

Yeah but I really can’t believe your stupidity, or insanity for trying to say that that doesn’t by itself make it completely non-credible.

– Seriously he definitely needs to stop smoking crack.
Crackpipe continues…

“c) He’s talking about CHRISTIANS!

Okay, as usual, BB(s)J doesn’t put up what Pliny wrote and as we have seen, it’s probably because he never read the passage in question as we have seen. Though he does link it…which is new! Still doubt he read it, and I will show you why.

So let’s look at what Pliny says (because it’s important and we know we can’t BB(s)J’s word for what is said – even when it comes to the Bible!).

For a change I WON’T use Wikipedia. However I still will not use a Christian source (because we lie and are brainwashed). Instead I will PBS.

Pliny’s letter can be found here:

(sorry if you have to copy and paste it. I know it’s a first world hassle and all and might cause one to suffer terrible pain – blame it on my brainwashing)”

And Crackpipe attempts to justify his stupidity of not simply choosing a free site that does all kinds of cool stuff and you can click the links and stuff happens, over choosing ANOTHER free site that only posts text.

He fails.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now, it might take you a few minutes to read – but I bet you noticed something within this part: ” A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go.”

See it?

BB(s)J didn’t (probably again, because he didn’t actually read it).

I didn’t highlight it on purpose because it would give it away.

But I’ll let BB(s)J give the hints to what to look for.

“d) He’s not talking about Jesus.
– Pliny doesn’t mention Jesus.”

– That wasn’t Jesus, or Yeshua was it?

– So it was again just talkng about crazy christians as I said it was.

– This is no different than talking about Harry Potter at a Harry Potter convention.

– I really don’t know what Crackpipe thinks he’s talking about to be honest because “Christ” is not evidence of Jesus and am astounded by his stupidity. Really I am.

> He’s talking about what crazy christians believed, nothing else.

> Pliny isn’t saying he saw Jesus crucificed or ressurected.

> Pliny isn’t saying he knew Jesus.

> Pliny isn’t saying anything other than the fact that crazy christians exist.

> This is no different than saying that Mormons followed Joseph Smith who found golden plates.

> So WTF?!

– Let’s recap then shall we?

> Pliny talks about crazy christians

> Pliny talks about what crazy christians believe

> Pliny talks about a fictional character vaguely like one was talking about Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny

> He doesn’t talk about Jesus the man that he knew because of evidence, or that he knew existed, just the “christ” which is the equivalent to someone talking about Big Bird’s imaginary friend Snuffy.

> Pliny doesn’t talk about Jesus the man that he knew existed because of evidence.

> Pliny talks about the myth that christians believed in.

> Even if Pliny did believe in Jesus existing, it would be because he really didn’t care what they believed in, but it STILL wouldn’t be evidence, nor would Pliny have any evidence.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, did you see it?

I know, BB(s)J is stickler and has trouble with nicknames and alternate references to people, but most people (who are honest) notice that Pliny does “mention” Jesus: ” they also cursed Christ.”

As for Crackpipe using the word “stickler”. Let’s look that up in the dictionary:

“The definition of a stickler is someone who adheres tightly to a set of rules or principles.
A teacher who gives you detention if you are even a minute late is an example of someone who is a stickler for tardiness.”

– So Crackpipe is wrong then. I don’t have a problem with detail, I simply have a problem with people being delusional and dishonest.

– I also have a problem with people being stupid and then being unable to see that they are stupid, simply because they are stupid.

> Crackpipe is being stupid because he’s telling both myself and himself that Pliny was somehow talking about the real mangod Jesus that Pliny somehow had evidence for, which of course he didn’t and wasn’t.

> What Crackpipe doesn’t see is that Pliny was talkng about a belief that people he knew were crazy idiots had.
Crackpipe continues….

“And as we know, by this time the name Christ = Jesus, much like still today if I said who was the King of Pop you’d know who I was talking about, or The Godfather of Soul, or The King of All Media, or The Most Electrifying Man in Sports Entertainment History (maybe).

LOL Well for one thing those are real people that we have audio and video for and documented evidence of that can be 100% confirmed to be real.

Last I checked, there was no evidence for Jesus outside of the untrustworthy bible that wasn’t simply talking about hearsay, or from unreliable sources that are told from unreliable sources.
Crackpipe continues….

“I know, BB(s)J likes to play the “it could be game. But he doesn’t ever – not once – offer who else “it could be.”

It could be someone else, sure. IF you could offer us a reason and a possible alternative – if not, your “could be” is not an argument just wishful thinking on your part.

By the way, that isn’t the only time Christ is mentioned.”

Games? Huh? What game? The game where I guess what mental illness Crackpipe has?

Just because Pliny is talking about the delusional title of the christians imaginary friend, that they only believe because of hearsay, is not “evidence” of a real man that Pliny offers any evidence of.

FAIL again.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, so BB(s)J is off to a poor start, but I’m sure he’s got a hum-dinger coming up:

– Duhr! Derp derp!

Shit, I hope he didn’t have a stroke!”

LOL No Crackpipe I’m not off to a bad start. I was quite finished saying all that was necessary a long time ago.

– Crackpipe is the one who not only hasn’t gotten a start at all, but he’s still wondering what direction he’s going.

– Instead of actually going anywhere Crackpipe instead is trying to tell us that he’s way ahead of us and we haven’t left.

– Again I will remind you that Crackpipe is the Black knight and the pet store salesman, both of Monty Python, all rolled into one.

– So I again present you ladies and gentleman, the one and only dipstick of denial…. Crackpipe christian.
Crackpipe continues….

“- So we have proof that there were brainwashed people, who think that Jesus killed himself, to save us from himself, because he was going to kill us, unless we killed him first, because he loved us so much that he wanted to kill us.

He really doesn’t know his Bible does he?

NO CHRISTIAN thinks Jesus killed himself. Take that back, there might be one…(there’s always and exception that proves the rule).”

So Crackpipe isn’t saying that the person Crackpipe believes is the omnipotent master of the universe could have stopped himself from getting killed at any moment? LOL

– Ok folks let’s just think about what he’s saying here….

– If a 300 pound guy is in a pool and let’s a 5 year old drown him and hold his head under water, who killed who?

> The 5 year old for holding the man under, or the man for letting the 5 year old do it?

> Now let’s remind ourselves that Crackpipe thinks that because Jesus was God he knew he was going to die and be tortured before it even happened.

> So this is like the 300 pound man deciding beforehand that he was going to let the 5 year old drown him.

> So since Jesus did things that he knew would get him killed and he knew he would get killed, then that really does mean that Jesus did kill himself according to Crackpipe’s version.
Crackpipe continues…..

“Second, he really doesn’t know his Gospel or the meaning of Christ’s death. Which is to be expected. He doesn’t want to understand, nor does he really care. A false view works better for him than what is actually true in the Christian view of salvation…but I digress, let’s get to the meat of his argument!”

Uhhh ok well Crackpipe really accomplished a lot didn’t he by saying that?

He could have told us his wonderful version that “makes sense” to us (according to Crackpipe) but instead of giving us the explanation of how such ridiculous nonsense could possibly make sense, he just leaves us without an explanation in a snobbish, condescending huff. Which isn’t surprising. After all, he is an apologist and he is Crackpipe.

> Deflecting, lying and timewasting are all that apologists and Crackpipe know how to do.
Crackpipe continues….

“And people wonder why I wrote this story about how apologists are all deceiving liars:

What? The hell does this have to do with Pliny?”

Well I couldn’t resist the opportunity since you were being a deceiving liar and showing timewasting and deflection.

> Couldn’t resist showing my point since you gave such a great example of it as you keep doing.
Crackpipe continues….

“That’s right, nothing…like what I believe about the Quran actually matters as to whether or not a letter written by a Greek is true.”

Of course it doesn’t matter to you. You’re brainwashed and the thought of comparing someone else’s nonsensical piece of evidence of their delusion to your own nonsensical piece of your delusion of their religion is insane, especially when you see them as ridiculous as they see you,
Crackpipe continues….

“No, BB(s)J has an argument let’s just find it:

e) As explained here about why Pliny’s letter is suspicious:

Now, even though I’m brainwashed, I always link up BB(s)J’s relevant links, and even offer better ones that he could use in the future including this one above.

What I love is right off the bat we read this: “Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a “historical” character.”

No shit Sherlock!”

Ok well that was easy.
Crackpipe continues….

“Where in the world do you EVER see someone seriously say that these works “prove” Jesus existed?

Hint: the P-word is more often used by atheists.


Ok. I am officially exchanging with one of the stupidest people on Earth now. He is nitpicking.

– If Crackpipe is now admitting that none of these prove Jesus then why is he wasting our time?
Crackpipe continues….

“Simple fact: you can’t “prove” history. Especially ancient history. Not one historian will EVER tell you they can prove what has happened in the past.

Even in court (which BB(s)J likes to use as an example) proof is ONLY established to the boundaries of “beyond” reasonable doubt. Because 100 percent certainty can NEVER be established when it comes to historical accounts.

Those who deny this, are well…ignorant of reality and afraid of its implications.”


That is sooooo funny! I seriously did not make up that last line.

– A christian is saying “people who think you can tell accurate history are IGNORANT OF REALITY!” WTF?!

– Since when was any single religious person EVER not ignorant of reality?

> This is the equivalent of if Fifty-cent were saying “major league baseball players can’t throw a pitch”.

– This of course is ignorant of the following facts:

> There is no evidence of any religion being true.

> That people only believe their own religion because that was the one they were child indoctrinated to, or brainwashed through some sort of emotional vulnerability being exploited.

> The world doesn’t need religion and is far better without religion as studies have shown.

> Religions are all the same and are all grown out of human stupidity, brainwashing, child indoctrination and lack of real knowledge.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, so if you read the article it talks about Hadrian and him purportedly stating: “The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis,”

To quote the article: ” Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:”

And then this: “It is thus possible that the “Christos” or “Anointed” god Pliny’s “Christiani” were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE.

Hadrian’s “purported” writings.

Okay, let’s actually use the definition here.

“said to be TRUE but definitely not REAL.”


So is it really possible that the Christians were following Serapis?

Yeah, if Hadrian’s definitely not real report was…well, um…real.

Now the article goes onto to say that Osiris was also called “Chrestos”.

As Borat would say, “Not so much!”

In fact, this has been killed so many times that atheists even still use it shows desperation.”

Oh really? Well Crackpipe didn’t do his research then.

If you look it up you’ll see quite clearly that there were people called “christians” before the christians we know of today (which would be one of the 40,000 different sects of christianity).

Take a looky:

And definitely this one:

– Yep, definitely “christians” around a long time before the Jesus stories and those same “christians” (not Jesus followers) were around into the 2nd century.

– I mean it actually is common knowledge.

> Check it out on this TOURIST webite for Egyptian travel:

Says this on that site:

“On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as “Messiah”, though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to “Lord Serapis”, so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis.”

– Let’s remember again how “chrestus” just means “anointed one”.


– Either way Pliny is still just based on hearsay and nothing else if it was actually talking about what todays christians believe.
Crackpipe continues….

“There are many sites out there that show that the Osiris/Jesus connection is such a shitty argument. Don’t believe me?

Google Osiris vs. Jesus.

Literally, do those words exactly.

Now, I have yet to come across one actual historian that uses this argument…if BB(s)J can find one I would love to see who. Even most Myther historians don’t use it.”


Because it’s bullshit.”

Crackpipe I think is forgetting some undeniable facts here:

1) Christianity was given it’s push by Constantine.

2) Rome had several gods

3) Mithros, Zeus, Hercules, Osiris and Serapis were just a few.

4) Serapis was very similar to the god of the old testament, for which Jesus is supposed to be connected to.

5) History shows that Osiris eventually evolved into Serapis.

6) Serapis was called “Chrestus” or “Christus” long before the Jesus story came around.


– Osiris> Serapis> Chrestus> Christ> Jesus

– As I showed here how Constantine DID IN FACT superimpose other gods AND Jesus to make himself look like a god.

From real historians with real evidence.

> I guess Crackpipe hadn’t watched the above vid yet.
Crackpipe continues….

“Odd though, that in the day that the internet is damn near available to everyone (the library is free folks!) this shit still get’s put out there!

In any event, here is a link that kills the Osiris is Jesus shit very well:

Funny, how I haven’t uses suspect sources to argue my point, but BB(s)J does…and I am the liar…ponder that.

I swear this blog response article is my favorite one yet. Crackpipe is using some classic lines. I really wish I had more time to work on these since the last I checked there were 15 response articles to respond to.

I guess it will be a few weeks before Crackpipe sees them since I’m sending them all at once.

1) There really shouldn’t be any religious people these days because people have access to the internet which easily debunks, destroys and makes irrelevant every single religion.

2) Crackpipe is a liar and as soon as I get all these blog responses done I will go through them all and make a list which I’m posting at the same time as this so it should be up now to see it.

3) That’s hilarious how Crackpipe is saying I use suspect sources when Crackpipe is basing everything he’s saying off of a 2000 year old book of proven forgeries and anti-science, that has no evidence and based on copies of copies from people who were known liars and propaganda artists.

WHAT?! LOL Crackpipe really is the greatest! Greatest douchbag that is.

Let’s get this straight, because I’m still in disbelief of what I’m reading.

> Crackpipe is using the definition of a word used by one of my sources as a justification to simply deflect what they are saying.

> Crackpipe is using one of the multiple meanings of a word that the writer OBVIOUSLY didn’t mean.

> Crackpipe then provides a definition with multiple meanings and then implies that THAT was the meaning that should be chosen.

-Seriously, if people can’t see the desperation of Crackpipe here then they’re even more brainwashed than he is.

– So let’s google some definitions of “purportedly” since Crackpipe has stooped so low as to waste everyone’s time with petty definitions of words in order to discredit them.

> Here’s one:

Let’s see:

“Princeton’s WordNet

purportedly, supposedly(adverb)
believed or reputed to be the case”
(Sounds good to me)

Here’s another on there:


supposedly, putatively or reputedly”
(Not looking too good for Crackpipe here)


“Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

pur•port•edpərˈpɔr tɪd, -ˈpoʊr-(adj.)
reputed or claimed; alleged:
no evidence of their purported wealth.”
(Lookin good again)

– So Crackpipe saying that the sources I posted were false and non-credible because one of the many definitions of the word “purported” means “false information” is so very amusing that I hope people see just how deluded Crackpipe really is.
Crackpipe continues….

“So, we now have established that neither BB(s)J nor his link people KNEW what the word purported meant.

Also note that the link also claims the evidence is….you guessed it “worthless.”

Damn, BB(s)J is tanking on this one…what else does he have?”

HAHAHA No Crackpipe, nobody has established anything like that whatsoever, as I clearly showed above.

– Nice try, but as usual you wasted my time responding to you (though that was funny).

– You also wasted everyone else’s time.

– You also showed your self as being dishonest and non-credible, aswell as very stupid.

> Obviously you seen the other definitions besides your own false definition that didn’t apply, so congratulations for saying something ridiculous and pointless to try to make me lose credibility, but instead you wrote something that made YOU lose credibility. Way to go!
Crackpipe continues….

“- Is possible that the letter is a forgery anyways.

No. Not really. Sure “Taylor” says it could be. But with very little justification aside from ONE German dude. Hey I’m German, so I guess I should believe that guy!

One guy agreeing with one OTHER guy is far from evidence…what does the majority of historical scholarship say (which includes atheists)? Not a forgery. But like I said, there’s always and an exception that proves the rule…

– Could even have been written in the 15 century.


PBS in my link says it got ITS Pliny quote from Josephus….

Shit, we have a problem.

Time to call in the “impartial” wikipedia!

But they could be wrong….

Fascinating that the wikipedia link Crackpipe posted clearly had a part talking about how Pliny’s work wasn’t discovered til the 15th century.

– As for the PBS link Crackpipe sent…

If you look on the bottom there of his PBS link article then you’ll see that it was taken from A BOOK called “The Works of Josephus” which was a book written by William Whiston, which was written in 1737.

> NOT a book written by Josephus, but a guy who quoted a bunch of Josephus and I guess had a few quotes that he threw in there from works THAT HE THOUGHT were Pliny’s.

– So no Crackpipe, not from Josephus, but a guy in the 1700s who was quoting stuff that was FOUND 300 years earlier in the 1400s and through some of Pliny’s stuff in there for some reason.

– So looks like you REALLY blew this article Crackpipe.

– If you acknowledge that brainwashing exists, then you acknowledge that you might be brainwashed.

> If you acknowledge that you might be brainwashed, then tell me how it isn’t possible that your entire religion is brainwashing and you have been lied to?
Crackpipe continues….


Thanx for posting that and it’s right. There still is definitely no proof of anything in regards to anything that proves that Jesus was a real person.

– I really have quite easily destroyed everything you have sent at me thus far and I enjoy doin so.

– It really isn’t that hard to do when asking someone to prove a complete lie and they have no evidence and all they can do is lie and keep telling the other person that they’re winning an argument when clearly they aren’t.
Crackpipe concludes….

“Yep, if we believe you didn’t read what you purport (ha!) you did. That someone else purported something else about Jesus, and that one doesn’t understand that Christ = Jesus and ONLY Jesus unless you want to believe the Osiris bullshit that’s been debunked for quite some time now.

But I’m just a brainwashed Christian…I’m sure BB(s)J can smash down every single one of my arguments, against his arguments….

We shall see!”

Yawn. Well I already embarrassed you regarding the definition of “purported, so we’ll just skip that part.

– There were other people called “christians” before the Jesus christians.

– Again, Separis evolved from being Osiris and Separis is very similiar the god of the old Testament which Jesus is supposedly connected to.

– Separis also looks like the way Jesus supposedly does.

– Also, Romans worshipped Separis among other gods until Constantine changed everything for his own crazy delusions.

– Yep sure did smash everything Crackpipe said

– It was great to also talk about other things also, including confronting him with his brainwashing which I hope to someday discuss with him.