Um... not the Actor Tom Holland.

No s*^%. Try reading before posting.

BTW I watched some of the video and will finish it later.

Let's say what I heard wasn't...compelling. It's rationalization from his standpoint, nothing more. It's certainly not anything that rises to the level of being called evidence.

Not sure why the site gerbils flubbed the link. Just add "_(author)" to the above wiki page address and it takes you to where you need to be.

But you already KNOW EVERYTHING, so why would you ever learn anything?

You sound like a child who's pissed that the adults don't believe his obviously concocted story.

Which more or less jives with the topic of this thread.

Also, read the guy's f*&^ing wiki page.

Calling him a "secular historian" constantly as if it's central to understanding of this material is disingenuous given he was raised in a devout Anglican household and has been anything but an atheist for over a decade.

You seem to be the magical thinker here; I'm quoting a secular historian, and you are trusting your fee fees.

You keep saying this. Probably because you think it gives weight to his arguments, which are just as terrible as most others are when trying to justify the veracity of Bronze Age goat herder myths beyond simple faith.

Thats the magic of religion.
There's no way to prove anything.
It's 100% based on belief.
You just have to accept it.

Which is why I chuckle at the flailings of these types of threads to make it more than that.

Every thinking man(and woman) has "a dog in this fight".
Every thinking person at some point has had to reconcile and justify their own mortality to themselves.

At this point the historical existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible in representing him is irrelevant.

It probably has been for centuries as belief in Christianity has taken on a life of its own and isn't in any way tethered to it.

Do you think Christianity would simply poof out of existence were we to suddenly get some irrefutable proof that Jesus didn't exist?

Referred to a renowned secular historian...

Argument from authority *drink*

I laugh at these threads because you sound like an anti-vaxxer or climate denier.

They're the only people I read regularly who feel the need to describe people in that manner.

What is it with you whining about what other people post here, just because you disagree with it?

It isn't whining to point out that you seem very concerned with the validity of your faith, to the point that you seek any means possible to validate it instead of just riding with it as faith.

This thread post is from a top secular scholar of ancient history, who says the the historic person with the greatest influence on our history and culture is JC.

Argument from authority and, honestly, who farking cares? Seriously, other than someone who needs to try and shore up their faith, what possible reason is there to care about this argument?

Feel free to post why you disagree with that... although that would require actually knowing what Tom Holland's evidence is.
#17 | Posted by Corky

I don't care enough to because the entire thing is little more than intellectual ------------ (not the kind that will make you go blind).

The historical veracity of Jesus is entirely meaningless to me.

Ballwasher will be here any time to say how angry *stamps little size 6.5 feet* this makes him...

What is it with using this place as a means of shoring up your faith by posting excuses and rationales nobody cares about?

Is it even legal to give political rallies to troops?

Or is it simply tasteless and tacky like everything else this bloated pile of s*&^ does?

Well, publicly, at least.

I have no doubt they're still working together to invade privacy and collect info to sell.

You're so brainwashed you're still coasting on the intellectual fumes they've served you to gain your vote.

Time to wake up, idiot.

So kids starve so we can fund lunatic groups of maga morons in Europe?

What happened to being a Chreestian nation?

So we should expect to see righties flooding this thread with all sorts of protests against this blatantly unconstitutional oath, right?

I bet if we went back to the thread on this incident the idiot righties here would be all over believing the official story (aka official lie) even though ICE has shown themselves to be completely unworthy of belief.

How's it feel to be had again, dips*&^s?

STFU idiot.

That stupid a** talking point has been thoroughly abused, beaten and smacked down but you stupid, ignorant dips*&^s won't stop bleating it.

that is poised to rock Washington, D.C.

No, it's not.

Can we please stop acting as if this administration isn't so thoroughly, blatantly corrupt that scandals that would have been career enders just a few years ago are just another Tuesday morning 3rd page news story?

These people aren't going anywhere.

It is. It's been a trend going back decades.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger

Let me guess, it coincidentally goes back about as far as the fall of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of fat tubs of traitorous s*&^ like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

You're an idiot. I don't think there's a single topic that you're not entirely incapable of assessing accurately.

No s*&^.

The salt in the wound will be a reimbursement of tariff costs to corporations who have already passed that cost on. Consumers are gonna get it rotisserie style.

Also, I wouldn't get too smug since it wouldn't surprise me one bit if critics voicing their opinions on sites like this have already been deanonymized and information out there ready available for rabid MAGA diehards to terrorize and target as they rampage at the loss of their Dear Leader.

Trump will find out that he has no friends. Only shyster lawyer doing what shyster lawyers do.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac

He'll still have rabid followers like shrimpd*&^ and lfthndcuck who he'll stir to violence, attempting to burn it all down so nobody can have it.

This doesn't go away with the demise of Trump.

Where's ballwasher to whine about the media being the new Pravda?

IOW, we're shifting to a buyers market?
And?

#6 | Posted by madbomber

We would be if homes were actually affordable.