If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2014, 01:09 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 02:01 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 12:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They were all greeks, in support of greek patriotism, so they weren't objective, but where devoted to spread the greek mythos of the heroic god-king, not to mention that these writers wrote of Alexander a couple hundred years after his death. And writers like Plutarch wrote of fictional beings like Romus and Remus, in the style of historical writings as well. There has long been a greek tradition, of ficto-historosis, in which mythologies were told using the style of histories, to convey a sort of realism, like realism in films, this is the style incorporated by these writers as well.

The word "Greek" is capitalized, troll. You really are an ignorant fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
Nice try at creating a false analogy. Not one was claiming he "died for sins", that he had be prophesied, or that he was a deity.
There are multiple REAL EXTERNAL references, battles recorded by people WHO HATED HIM, and were conquered in REAL historical interactions by him.
You people ALL need to lie for your Jebus to make your cult look rational ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Chronicles
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/al...r_z1b.html
https://www.academia.edu/1980930/Histori..._the_Great
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexanderdeath.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callisthenes

We know who his REAL family was, and all sorts of REAL humans who interacted with him.
You've already PROVEN you have no clue about how history is done when YOU CLAIMED the gospels were "biographies" of the day, and I provided this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
which you never even acknowledged. You have never given us even ONE "similar biography". You're a lying disingenuous dishonest fraud.
(My but religion has done you people a lot of good.)

Tomasina can believe in him, cuz his Babble actually describes things his generals did :
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=GNT
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-hi...-the-great
We actually know where his REAL body was burried. Did he "rise from the dead" ? No. Are there any "non-natural" claims being made about him ? No.
"Alexander the Great's tomb was one of the biggest tourist attractions of the ancient world. Roman emperors including Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Caligula traveled to Alexandria to pay their respects; and Augustus was reportedly so overwhelmed during his visit that he accidentally broke the nose off Alexander's mummy while laying a wreath at his grave."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-11-2014, 01:11 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We don't have enough evidence to say without a doubt that Alexander the Great existed, nearly all the sources regarding his life were written several centuries after his supposed death, and often tell conflicting stories. Any one honest with themselves will see that as the far as the question of his existence is concerned, we should claim that we don't know.

Are some of the tales fantastical and lacking in evidence? Sure. Did they name Alexandria, Egypt after him and mint coins with his name on them? Yes. The primary inscription on the coins is ALEXANDROU (of Alexander) and ALEXANDROU BASILEWS (of Alexander the King).


Coins of Alexander the Great

[Image: Alexander_lifetime.jpg]
This is a lifetime issue - 325-323 B.C - The legs of Zeus are side by side)


So did an Alexander, King of Macedonia, actually exist? Beyond any reasonable doubt.



(04-11-2014 11:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The stories about him were likely created from various myths, and historical figures of the time, sort of like how TV characters are composed, and there may have been a likely ruler named Alexander, on which these writers may have used as a jumping point to create their myths, but he likely had very little resemblance to accounts written about Alexander the great, and the only real commonality might have been the fact that they had similar names.

The virgin birth and being the son of Zues? Fiction. Being King of Macedonia, his campaigns across Persia and setting the groundwork for the Greek dominance of the region? Yeah, that actually happened.



(04-11-2014 11:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The stories may sound like histories, but keep in mind that even fiction writers, wrote myths that sounded very much like histories, such as Plutarch's and Romus and Remus. Inscription's with his name have as much bearing on his actual existence, as inscriptions with the names of pagan Gods, lend credibility to their existence.

We have five main secondary sources for Alexander, none of which worshiped him as a god, so there is that...

Historiography of Alexander the Great



(04-11-2014 11:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Any real skeptic can see that the Alexander's existence is pretty questionable, the odds of his existence hover around 20% in my estimate. If you disagree, then the burden of proof falls on you.

If this is your poor-man's attempt at equating the historicity of Jesus to the historicity of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia; you are failing miserably. Drinking Beverage


Alexander the Great, Jesus, and David Marshall: A Simpleton's Approach to History - Dr. Hector Avalos (4/15/2013)

ALEXANDER’S EXISTENCE
Despite these problems with the sources, the existence of Alexander is a reasonable belief because he has wide and independent attestation from all types of sources, and not just those of his own followers.

Some of these sources date from his own time, and are attested archaeologically, not just from later accounts. So, we don’t just have to depend on later historians such as Plutarch and Arrian.

For example, reliefs at the Shrine of the Bark at Luxor in Egypt mention Alexander by name, and depict him artistically during his lifetime (ca. 330-325 BCE). That would confirm his presence in Egypt mentioned by all major ancient sources.

[Image: LuxorTemple15.jpg]
Alexander Shrine at Luxor, Egypt


We also have a Mesopotamian tablet, now at the British Museum and designated as BM 36761, which mentions Alexander by name, and refers to his entry into Babylon (See Mesopotamian evidence):

-Akkadian (BM 36761, Reverse, line 11): A-lek-sa-an-dar-ri-is LUGAL ŠÚ ana E.KI K[U4
-English: "Alexander, the king of the world, entered Babylon"

Of course, Alexander is also mentioned or referenced in the Bible itself (1 Maccabees 1:1-7; Daniel 8:4-8, 21).

The claim found in Plutarch and Arrian that Alexander conquered Babylon is paralleled by this Mesopotamian source, which is not a Greek source or dependent on a Greek source or cannot be said to have been written by a Greek follower of Alexander.

When Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources, which are not otherwise dependent on each other, say the equivalent of “Alexander was here” during his lifetime, then it is reasonable to believe that there existed a man named Alexander who was present at those places.

That is why it is unfair to compare Jesus to Alexander in terms of historical evidence for their existence. There is nothing outside of later Christian sources saying Jesus was anywhere in his lifetime. Nothing in the New Testament is fully contemporary with Jesus.

There also are no Roman or Greek sources saying that there was even a group who believed that Jesus lived or did anything the Gospels allege about him. There is no archaeological evidence of his activities or of the activities of his group from Jesus’ supposed lifetime.

That absence of evidence is curious because, when speaking of Christianity, Acts 28:22 (RSV) says “everywhere it is spoken against.” More traces should remain in the first century of a group that everyone was speaking against.

In the case of Alexander, his fame was present in a wide range of sources as is expected of someone who was said to have conquered the known world. Alexander was closer to someone “everywhere spoken about” and there is independent corroborating evidence to confirm that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-11-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
The moment people start telling me that abortion is wrong because Alexander said so, is the moment I'll start caring whether he existed or not

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DLJ's post
05-11-2014, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 02:52 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Are some of the tales fantastical and lacking in evidence? Sure. Did they name Alexandria, Egypt after him and mint coins with his name on them? Yes. The primary inscription on the coins is ALEXANDROU (of Alexander) and ALEXANDROU BASILEWS (of Alexander the King)

Well, in that case I guess coins of the Goddess Athena, prove her existence as well:

[Image: 8650333_1.jpg?v=8CC3B544B5DD6D0]

Quote:So did an Alexander, King of Macedonia, actually exist? Beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes, only if you grant that coins such of the goddess Athena, and the nymph Arethusa,prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they existed. In fact if you compare the coin you produced you can see the image bares a striking resemblance to the coin of Apollo:

[Image: coin_philip_ii.JPG]

In fact Alexander was often believed to have been the incarnate form of Apollo. Sound familiar?

Quote:The virgin birth and being the son of Zues? Fiction. Being King of Macedonia, his campaigns across Persia and setting the groundwork for the Greek dominance of the region? Yeah, that actually happened.

Evidence for campaigns across Persia, the groundwork for greek dominance, are only evidence for these campaigns, not for the existence of the god-king Alexander. lol. By this very reasoning crusades campaigned under other god-kings, like Jesus indicate that he existed as well.

Quote:We have five main secondary sources for Alexander, none of which worshiped him as a god, so there is that...

All written a few hundred years after his Alexander supposed life, not contemporary sources, and all written by pro-greek writers. They pilfered through the mythos, the oral traditions, stories of the God king, are tried to make a bit more human, sort of like Mark.

Even today we have historians who don't believe Jesus was the messiah or a God, who attempt to recreate his life and person, take for example Ehrman, or Reza Aslan. These historians likely may even have believed Alexander existed mistakingly based on these myths, just like Tacitus may have believed Jesus existed based on christian myths at the time.

Quote:If this is your poor-man's attempt at equating the historicity of Jesus to the historicity of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia; [i]you are failing miserably. Drinking Beverage

I'm not saying Alexander didn't exist, maybe there was some king name alexander, but the contradictory nature of the sources, indicate that this alexander likely would not have resembled the portraits painted of him. Alexander was a very common name at the time, just like Jesus.

And I am merely arguing that there is not enough evidence for any genuine skeptic to claim that Alexander did exist, and in fact we have serious reason to doubt that he did, because the sources about his life are bias, pro-greek sources, they are contradictory, and the accounts contain all sorts of noted fabrications, like he was the son of Zeus, a virgin birth etc. His story also resembles the contained many of the elements of the god-king myths at the time.

Quote:For example, reliefs at the Shrine of the Bark at Luxor in Egypt mention Alexander by name, and depict him artistically during his lifetime (ca. 330-325 BCE). That would confirm his presence in Egypt mentioned by all major ancient sources.

So an inscription with the name of Zeus, or pagan deities indicate they existed as well?

Quote:In the case of Alexander, his fame was present in a wide range of sources as is expected of someone who was said to have conquered the known world. Alexander was closer to someone “everywhere spoken about” and there is independent corroborating evidence to confirm that.

Yet we don't have a single writing from any contemporary historian that even mentions his name, not even ones we could argue are later insertion by Alexander Apologist. At least for Jesus we have more than one passage where Jesus is mentioned, the second one, regarding the death of his supposed brother, which is generally viewed as authentic.

We don't even have anything like this from contemporary historians regarding Alexander, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:31 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
^^ The reason your post is not displaying is your quote tags are not matched like this:

[ quote ] text [ / quote ] // spaces mine so that it shows up

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 12:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They were all greeks, in support of greek patriotism, so they weren't objective, but where devoted to spread the greek mythos of the heroic god-king, not to mention that these writers wrote of Alexander a couple hundred years after his death. And writers like Plutarch wrote of fictional beings like Romus and Remus, in the style of historical writings as well. There has long been a greek tradition, of ficto-historosis, in which mythologies were told using the style of histories, to convey a sort of realism, like realism in films, this is the style incorporated by these writers as well.

The word "Greek" is capitalized, troll. You really are an ignorant fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
Nice try at creating a false analogy. Not one was claiming he "died for sins", that he had be prophesied, or that he was a deity.
There are multiple REAL EXTERNAL references, battles recorded by people WHO HATED HIM, and were conquered in REAL historical interactions by him.
You people ALL need to lie for your Jebus to make your cult look rational ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Chronicles
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/al...r_z1b.html
https://www.academia.edu/1980930/Histori..._the_Great
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexanderdeath.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callisthenes

We know who his REAL family was, and all sorts of REAL humans who interacted with him.
You've already PROVEN you have no clue about how history is done when YOU CLAIMED the gospels were "biographies" of the day, and I provided this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
which you never even acknowledged. You have never given us even ONE "similar biography". You're a lying disingenuous dishonest fraud.
(My but religion has done you people a lot of good.)

Tomasina can believe in him, cuz his Babble actually describes things his generals did :
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=GNT
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-hi...-the-great
We actually know where his REAL body was burried. Did he "rise from the dead" ? No. Are there any "non-natural" claims being made about him ? No.
"Alexander the Great's tomb was one of the biggest tourist attractions of the ancient world. Roman emperors including Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Caligula traveled to Alexandria to pay their respects; and Augustus was reportedly so overwhelmed during his visit that he accidentally broke the nose off Alexander's mummy while laying a wreath at his grave."

Blah blah BLAH moron, we're talking about WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION... and your double standard on what you ACCEPT. The written documentation for Christ is as early as roughly 10 years after His crucifixion... the EARLIEST for Alexander is 1500 years after his lifetime. The documentation for Christ within that same 1500 year period numbers in the MANY MANY THOUSANDS.

What a lot of people don't stop to think about is what an amazing thing it is for even a fragment from 2000 years ago to exist today. It is an extreme rarity. Alexander the great Died in 323 bc BUT.. our EARLIEST manuscripts documenting him dates to the 10th century. NOTHING before the 10th century for a man as important as Alexander was to world history... nothing before it

THATS how rare it is for even a single fragment from 2000 years ago to exist... yet we have an abundance.

Jesus on the other hand has TENS OF THOUSANDS of manuscripts MUCH EARLIER than Alexander, ONE of them possibly dating to approximately 50 AD... roughly 10 years after the resurrection of Christ. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING to have such a vast amount of evidence from such early dates...

What this indicates is that AFTER the resurrection he was HIGHLY written about. possibly tens of thousands of EACH of the most popular manuscripts existed then, for so many from the first and second century, to have survived today. On top of this... these manuscripts were highly regarded and considered holy, and were VERY WELL taken care of and preserved in most cases. THIS IN ITSELF is GREAT and SUBSTANTIAL evidence of the reality of His earthly existence.

He certainly is WAY better and WAY more documented than Our Alexander the great... and this is in SPITE of the fact that for the first 300 years of the church, being a Christian was a death sentence. ANY Christian material found would have been destroyed because they were hated by both the Romans AND the Jews,,, and we STILL have MANY pieces from the first and 2nd century... again comparing this to the earliest documentation for Alexander being 1500 years after his lifetime.

Amazing .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:41 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:50 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
So he's still ignoring any evidence that he does not like, not addressing it at all, throwing out copy pasted insults and then spamming the same exact debunked claims he made before?

Edit: oh joy he is even quoting his own posts in full right after he makes them. That's not desperate as fuck.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:58 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 02:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So he's still ignoring any evidence that he does not like, not addressing it at all, throwing out copy pasted insults and then spamming the same exact debunked claims he made before?

Edit: oh joy he is even quoting his own posts in full right after he makes them. That's not desperate as fuck.

What evidence? Your earliest written documentation is a 10th century document... or did you miss that lmao.

Ours is mid first century... and MANY second century and MASSIVE amounts of 3rd and 4th centuries, and by the time we get to Alexander's 1500 years, we have THOUSANDS ON THOUSANDS.

Whad ya miss there sport? lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 03:13 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 02:38 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Blah blah BLAH moron,

How Christian of you. Thumbsup Religion did a lot for you I see.

(05-11-2014 02:38 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  we're talking about WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION... and your double standard on what you ACCEPT. The written documentation for Christ is as early as roughly 10 years after His crucifixion.

Prove it. With secular scholarly sources.
Take your time. You FAILED to provide even one.
There is none.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: