" 

 == I don't think this example is constructive == 

 ""(1) Jesus was the messiah.  
 (2) Premise (1) is true. 
 Therefore, Jewish people are going to hell."" 

 This example definitely does not follow this structure: 
 ""Fact 1: X claims statement A. 
 Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying. 
 Conclusion: Therefore, A is true."" 

 Since the statement at the beginning, ""Jesus was the messiah,"" and the statement at the end, ""Jewish people are going to hell,"" are not identical, this is not a bare assertion fallacy. To follow the structure, the example would be something like this: 

 ""Joe claims Jesus was the messiah. 
 Joe claims Joe is not lying. 
 Therefore, Jesus is the messiah."" 

 However, we do not need this example; the example that we already have, in the following form, is sufficient. 
 ""Fact 1: Simon says that Jack eats ice cream. 
 Fact 2: Simon says that Simon is not lying. 
 Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream."" 

 Furthermore, the link at the end of this ""example"" to a Christian website seems to show that the person who put it into the article is motivated by trying to disparage the website rather than illustrating the subject of the article. This is why I am removing it."