From my point of view the problem we had was that your argument ("Jesus wasn't called Jesus Christ therefore he didn't exist") was batshit raving crazy and no sane person could possibly accept it. Any idea that I disagreed with it because you were making it is equally divorced from reality.
So I guess you need to improve your own evaluation of what is going wrong.
When "historical Jesus" proponents actually get around to describing who Jesus Christ actually was, they invariably produce an individual who wasn't named either Jesus or Christ. And the reason I say "wasn't executed by Romans" is because he doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans...
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
And I hope I don't need to go into the silliness of your "doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans" argument.
Transliterations and translations are inevitable when you take words from one language to another with a different script. You HAVE to do one or the other. To assign any special significance to them is just silly.
Right, and that was the argument that I was making - when you assert, as the source of a series of stories about a mythological figure a historical figure who bears no significant similarity to the mythological one, it's insufficient to simply say that the historical figure is the source of the mythological one.
Thank you for confirming my point. Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever.
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of starting a new thread for a full discussion I really don't see the need to do so for an obvious and trivial point.
Names and titles derived through transliteration and/pr translation should be counted as at least similar to the originals (usually they'd be accepted as the same, unless there was an error). And that's because one or the other HAS to be done when going from one language - such as Hebrew - to another - like Greek - with a different alphabet.
So if we are dealing with something that is the result of transliteration and/or translation it should count as a similarity. So why list this similarity as a lack of similarity ?
Clearly rational discussion with you on this point is impossible. You think that similar things aren't similar, you think that insignificant differences must be taken as significant. And much, much more.
But thanks for proving my point about where the problem is. It's not me - it's you.
I wish to particularly complain about her posts in this thread which are a nasty and thoroughly dishonest slap in the face to everyone who dared to attempt honest discussion with her.
Personal conviction that the objections are no good is no substitute for real answers to them. And that is all Faith has. That, and the lie that she has already answered them. That's no reason to shut down discussion as Faith has attempted. It is bullying, pure and simple.
And then to go whining and lying to the moderators because her bullying didn't work, because people dared to hit back, to claim that she was the victim. That's just disgusting.
Faith says she wants people to think about her argument - but she doesn't. The objections to her argument are the product of thinking - really thinking - about her argument. And yet she demands that the objections be discarded without thought, just on her say so.
What Faith demands is unthinking agreement. Which is death to discussion - the purpose of this site. And she dares complain that the moderators oppose her ? Ridiculous.