John Platko wrote:I think this may be just the thing jamest needs to pinpoint the persona of Christ. Just fill it out as you think JC might and out pops the answer. Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me:

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see you pointing to some other unrelated bullshit to prop up the original bullshit, but I'm not.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:



As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds. once you was your hands.

from

In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

Well plenty of people think his Declaration of Independence was special bullshit. Why not his Bible?

No please, go ahead and keep making vapid appeals to authority, it really strengthens your argument

What exactly do you oject to that is in the Jeferson Bible?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:I think this may be just the thing jamest needs to pinpoint the persona of Christ. Just fill it out as you think JC might and out pops the answer. Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me:

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see you pointing to some other unrelated bullshit to prop up the original bullshit, but I'm not.

Well if I failed to muster I'm hoping I at least got a

John Platko wrote:Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me...

That's great, John; whatever floats your boat. The task of persuading other people differs from that of convincing yourself.

John Platko wrote:What exactly do you oject to that is in the Jeferson Bible?

Oh, is that how it works? Are we being asked to talk you out of your convictions? Another fun game from the folks who brought us pigeon chess!

John Platko wrote:As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds.

Gracious me, how positively refulgent you are, today. Why don't you flash your headlights and tap your horn so we can find out more about your other birthday gifts?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me...

That's great, John; whatever floats your boat. The task of persuading other people differs from that of convincing yourself.

John Platko wrote:What exactly do you oject to that is in the Jeferson Bible?

Oh, is that how it works? Are we being asked to talk you out of your convictions? Another fun game from the folks who brought us pigeon chess!

John Platko wrote:As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds.

Gracious me, how positively refulgent you are, today. Why don't you flash your headlights and tap your horn so we can find out more about your other birthday gifts?

Well let's not mak this thread all about me. How do you suggest jamest philosophically pinpoints the persona of Christ?

John Platko wrote:
Well let's not mak this thread all about me. How do you suggest jamest philosophically pinpoints the persona of Christ?

I'd suggest to jamest that "the persona of Christ" is a nonsense phrase; it's the kind of nonsense phrase that the sort of folks who natter on about "the persona of Christ" seem to think makes them appear literate, but there ya have it.

"Persona" is a literary term, and may also have lent itself to the psychobabblers. I would not recommend to jamest that he try to pass himself off as a literary type. It's confusing to some in the audience to promote the idea that Christ is both a historical figure and a literary character, since they can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that history is a genre of literature.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry corn picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

FIFY

Fuck. Now I’m going to have to turn emoticons off again.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

Well plenty of people think his Declaration of Independence was special bullshit. Why not his Bible?

No please, go ahead and keep making vapid appeals to authority, it really strengthens your argument

What exactly do you oject to that is in the Jeferson Bible?

I guess that last herring failed, so now you'll try another?

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:I think this may be just the thing jamest needs to pinpoint the persona of Christ. Just fill it out as you think JC might and out pops the answer. Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me:

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see you pointing to some other unrelated bullshit to prop up the original bullshit, but I'm not.

Well if I failed to muster I'm hoping I at least got a

If I assume you're trolling, then it's at least worth a chuckle.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Well let's not mak this thread all about me. How do you suggest jamest philosophically pinpoints the persona of Christ?

I'd suggest to jamest that "the persona of Christ" is a nonsense phrase; it's the kind of nonsense phrase that the sort of folks who natter on about "the persona of Christ" seem to think makes them appear literate, but there ya have it.

"Persona" is a literary term, and may also have lent itself to the psychobabblers. I would not recommend to jamest that he try to pass himself off as a literary type. It's confusing to some in the audience to promote the idea that Christ is both a historical figure and a literary character, since they can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that history is a genre of literature.

Well at least you're making me feel a bit better - you don't seem to have any more clue of how to go about philosophically pinpointing the persona of Christ than I do.

But if we're in the literature world and we're talking about some sort of mask then I think it's safe to say Christ didn't have one. Unless you want to think of the whole becoming flesh thing as a mask. Maybe jamest will be along shortly and help us out. Nobody else seems to be doing much better either.

I feel true sadness that we have failed to glimglab the jimjub.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Well let's not mak this thread all about me. How do you suggest jamest philosophically pinpoints the persona of Christ?

I'd suggest to jamest that "the persona of Christ" is a nonsense phrase; it's the kind of nonsense phrase that the sort of folks who natter on about "the persona of Christ" seem to think makes them appear literate, but there ya have it.

"Persona" is a literary term, and may also have lent itself to the psychobabblers. I would not recommend to jamest that he try to pass himself off as a literary type. It's confusing to some in the audience to promote the idea that Christ is both a historical figure and a literary character, since they can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that history is a genre of literature.

Well at least you're making me feel a bit better - you don't seem to have any more clue of how to go about philosophically pinpointing the persona of Christ than I do.

But if we're in the literature world and we're talking about some sort of mask then I think it's safe to say Christ didn't have one.

I think it's safe to say that Christ is an effigy, and that it would be idiotic to hang a mask on it, something that seems to have escaped both you and jamest. Pretending to discuss the persona of Christ is project of staggering banality, something that seems irresistible to the likes of you and him.

The banality can't be made any clearer than it is here -- if this guy wants to discuss the persona of Christ, WTF are you guys doing messing with it?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Well let's not mak this thread all about me. How do you suggest jamest philosophically pinpoints the persona of Christ?

I'd suggest to jamest that "the persona of Christ" is a nonsense phrase; it's the kind of nonsense phrase that the sort of folks who natter on about "the persona of Christ" seem to think makes them appear literate, but there ya have it.

"Persona" is a literary term, and may also have lent itself to the psychobabblers. I would not recommend to jamest that he try to pass himself off as a literary type. It's confusing to some in the audience to promote the idea that Christ is both a historical figure and a literary character, since they can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that history is a genre of literature.

Well at least you're making me feel a bit better - you don't seem to have any more clue of how to go about philosophically pinpointing the persona of Christ than I do.

But if we're in the literature world and we're talking about some sort of mask then I think it's safe to say Christ didn't have one.

I think it's safe to say that Christ is an effigy, and that it would be idiotic to hang a mask on it, something that seems to have escaped both you and jamest. Pretending to discuss the persona of Christ is project of staggering banality, something that seems irresistible to the likes of you and him.

The problem with your hypothesis is that most scholars think we're talkig about a real person who was really killed. That's not what an effigy is. Discussing his persona and such is a project comsuming staggering human resources for that last 2000 years - and a fair amount right here at the forum - why it even seems irrestible to the likes of you. And that's fascinating to me.

Cito di Pense wrote:The banality can't be made any clearer than it is here -- if this guy wants to discuss the persona of Christ, WTF are you guys doing messing with it?

You got me there, I don't think I can top that. Now we just need jamest to weigh in on whether he's talking religion or philosophy.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

I'd suggest to jamest that "the persona of Christ" is a nonsense phrase; it's the kind of nonsense phrase that the sort of folks who natter on about "the persona of Christ" seem to think makes them appear literate, but there ya have it.

"Persona" is a literary term, and may also have lent itself to the psychobabblers. I would not recommend to jamest that he try to pass himself off as a literary type. It's confusing to some in the audience to promote the idea that Christ is both a historical figure and a literary character, since they can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that history is a genre of literature.

Well at least you're making me feel a bit better - you don't seem to have any more clue of how to go about philosophically pinpointing the persona of Christ than I do.

But if we're in the literature world and we're talking about some sort of mask then I think it's safe to say Christ didn't have one.

I think it's safe to say that Christ is an effigy, and that it would be idiotic to hang a mask on it, something that seems to have escaped both you and jamest. Pretending to discuss the persona of Christ is project of staggering banality, something that seems irresistible to the likes of you and him.

The problem with your hypothesis is that most scholars think we're talkig about a real person who was really killed.

Yeah, I mean who cares if we can't show any actual similarity between the real person and the written one, right?

That's not what an effigy is. Discussing his persona and such is a project comsuming staggering human resources for that last 2000 years - and a fair amount right here at the forum - why it even seems irrestible to the likes of you. And that's fascinating to me.

That's funny, because the only thing interesting about it is that you're so interested in it. The thread shows that pretty well.

I'm a bit confused with this non-Christian Christ thing. Isn't that like a non-Buddhist Buddha or a non-Hindu Vishnu? (nothing much, Vishnu with you?).

I'm not sure what use a Christ would be without all the other baggage like original sin. Savior? We don't need no stinkin' Savior.

It's a way to get in the Slightly Outsiders Club.

Ah, like "edgy"?