Talk:Evidence for the historial existence of Jesus Christ

Tedious BS polluting my talk page, moved here
Mona was at it again. More over he was using my talk page to kick the idea around and then gets snarky about it needing to in the talk page of the article. Perhaps I overreacted by blocking him for a little over 3 days on that article but this attitude just rubs me the wrong way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona is a female name -- I'm a she. It is standard practice here to hash out disputes on the talk pages. I have presented the views of current scholars in the relevant academic discipline. You have not. Nor have you even tried to defend your version as to why it is superior to mine. You are using sources from 1912, fer chrissakes!---Mona- (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually if you actually paid attention instead of being a revert monkey you would have noticed that I added two more sources regarding the Josephus refeence...one of which was from 2007.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He NOT using a 1912 reference in the section you are editing; he is in reality using 2007, 2012 and 2014 references in the section you are messing with:


 * Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 3-13
 * Avalos, Hector (2007) The End of Biblical Studies, Prometheus Books. some snippets of book
 * February 8, 2012 blog by Richard Carrier


 * I totally concur with David Gerard's "no, bollocks" comment.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This issue with Mona is getting ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS, I've left almost everything of yours alone, as I said I would, until I have more time. I have one sticking point on the scholarly consensus regarding the Josephus Jesus material. You do not even dispute that my wording is accurate; you simply do not like it and prefer to downplay the consensus assessment. That is unreasonable in an essentially empirical context.---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about EVIDENCE. Consensus is NOT evidence. Period.  More over ease of access is not an issue as the Jesus Legend reference is all we really need as the relevant material either can be found through Google books or via the preview page at Amazon.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I already explained to you at that article's talk page that consensus is, in fact, evidence. In the same way that the creationists are properly confronted with the fact that 99.99% of scientists in relevant fields accept descent with modification, i.e., evolution. Expert consensus constitutes evidence in Western courts, per Rules of Evidence steeped in Enlightenment values.---Mona- (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)