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, 03:26 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 03:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

blah blah... I already did... moron
I gave you 12 extrabiblical sources AND documents dating to the first century... in Alexanders 1500 year time period between his lifetime and the earliest manuscript mentioning him, he is SWAMPED by THOUSANDS for Christ.

you need to go back and read... the only important person IN this thread (The OP)saw it, and that's good enough for me Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 03:36 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 02:58 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(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.

So I guess we can get rid of the entire field of archeology now because ONLY written evidence counts. Drinking Beverage
Seeing as how everything has to be explained to you sloooowly...The above is sarcasm you fucking troglodyte.

Also I don't know why you continue to lie about stuff, you are not fooling a single person? You realize this correct?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2014, 03:52 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 03:36 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 02:58 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  What evidence? Your earliest written documentation is a 10th century document... or did you miss that lmao.

So I guess we can get rid of the entire field of archeology now because ONLY written evidence counts. Drinking Beverage
Seeing as how everything has to be explained to you sloooowly...The above is sarcasm you fucking troglodyte.

Also I don't know why you continue to lie about stuff, you are not fooling a single person? You realize this correct?

And the presence of the church is from the first century til now is as much a fact as archeology. Archeology also uncovers documentation for Christ Wink

BUT the context again was WRITTEN documentation and how AMAZING it is that we have first and second century documentation when Alexander's earliest is FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AFTER his lifetime Smile
...and by THAT time we have literally THOUSANDS
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 04:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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]

Good god, you are stupid as fuck. Facepalm

They show that she existed as a goddess they believed in, sure. But there was never a claim that she actually existed during a set time in history as a Queen of Athens, nor were those coins minted during any supposed reign, nor was her earthly existence attested to by later historians who also didn't worship her, nor by landmarks made at the time noting her presence. There is no obelisk or tablet dated attesting to Athena's presence in Egypt or Babylon during any military campaign, unlike for Alexander, you ignorant shit.



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

See above why your facile false analogies are a huge pile of dogshit.

[Image: a63aa4e31a02ee74e4e4962ae5b9618ec66b1703...3e6e8c.jpg]



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Except that those campaigns actually happened, and they are attested to and attribute to one Alexander King of Macedonia. So what are you going to say? That the campaigns didn't actually happen? Or that they all universally miss-attributed them to the wrong person? Good luck dumbass.



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Nice try, but no.

Arrian of Nicomedia (/ˈæriən/; Latin: Lucius Flavius Arrianus "Xenophon"; Greek: Ἀρριανός c. AD c. 86 – c. 160) was a Greek historian, public servant, military commander and philosopher of the 2nd-century Roman period.

Anabasis Alexandri (Greek: Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις Alexándrou anábasis), the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian, is the most important source on Alexander the Great.

The Greek term anabasis referred to an expedition from a coastline into the interior of a country. The term katabasis referred to a trip from the interior to the coast. So a more literal translation would be The Expedition of Alexander.

This work on Alexander is one of the few surviving complete accounts of the Macedonian conqueror's expedition. Arrian was able to use sources which are now lost, such as the contemporary works by Callisthenes (the nephew of Alexander's tutor Aristotle), Onesicritus, Nearchus, and Aristobulus, and the slightly later work of Cleitarchus. Most important of all, Arrian had the biography of Alexander by Ptolemy, one of Alexander's leading generals and possibly his half-brother.

It is primarily a military history; it has little to say about Alexander's personal life, his role in Greek politics or the reasons why the campaign against Persia was launched in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_Alexandri




Plutarch (/ˈpluːtɑrk/; Greek: Πλούταρχος, Ploútarkhos, Koine Greek: [plǔːtarkʰos]; later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (Λούκιος Μέστριος Πλούταρχος); c. AD 46 – AD 120), was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia.

Life of Alexander
Plutarch's Life of Alexander, written as a parallel to that of Julius Caesar, is one of only five extant tertiary sources on the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great. It includes anecdotes and descriptions of events that appear in no other source, just as Plutarch's portrait of Numa Pompilius, the putative second king of Rome, holds much that is unique on the early Roman calendar.

Plutarch devotes a great deal of space to Alexander's drive and desire, and strives to determine how much of it was presaged in his youth. He also draws extensively on the work of Lysippus, Alexander's favourite sculptor, to provide what is probably the fullest and most accurate description of the conqueror's physical appearance.

When it comes to his character, however, Plutarch is often rather less accurate, ascribing inordinate amounts of self-control to a man who very often lost it. It is significant, though, that the subject incurs less admiration from his biographer as the narrative progresses and the deeds that it recounts become less savoury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch#Life_of_Alexander



Diodorus Siculus (/ˌdaɪəˈdɔːrəs ˈsɪkjʊləs/; Greek: Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης Diodoros Sikeliotes) or Diodorus of Sicily was a Greek historian.

In books VI - XVII, Diodorus recounts the history of the World starting with the Trojan War, down to the death of Alexander the Great. Books VI - X survive only in fragments, which cover events before and after the Trojan War including the stories of Bellerophon, Orpheus, Aeneas, and Romulus; some history from cities including Rome and Cyrene; tales of kings such as Croesus and Cyrus; and mentions of philosophers such as Pythagoras and Zeno. Book XI covers the history of Greece from 480 BC with the attempted invasion by Xerxes, and describes the Athens of Themistocles. Book XII, from 450 BC, covers wars of Athens, including the Peloponnesian War. Book XIII, from 415 BC, tells of the defeat of Athens at Syracuse, the subsequent war with Sparta, and the war between Carthage and Sicily. Book XIV, from 404 BC, covers the thirty tyrants of Athens; the death of Socrates, and the capture of Rome by the Gauls. Book XV covers wars in Greece including the Boeotian War and wars with Thebes. Book XVI, from 360 BC, describes Philip of Macedon and Artaxerxes. Book XVII covers Alexander the Great from his rise to power to his campaigns in the East and his death in Babylon.

The last section (volumes XVIII to the end) concerns the historical events from the struggles of Alexander's successors, through the wars between Rome and Carthage, down to either 60 BC or the beginning of Caesar's Gallic War in 59 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca...rth_Africa

You can even read it for yourself, translated into English, here.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro.../17D*.html




Quintus Curtius Rufus (/ˈkwɪntəs ˈkɜrʃiəs ˈruːfəs/) was a Roman historian, writing probably during the reign of the Emperor Claudius (41–54 AD) or Vespasian (69–79 AD). His only surviving work, Historiae Alexandri Magni, is a biography of Alexander the Great in Latin in ten books, of which the first two are lost, and the remaining eight are incomplete. His work is fluidly written, and while superficial study reveals the author's errors regarding geography, chronology and technical military knowledge, a detailed study reveals his focusing instead on character and protests against those Emperors of his times whom he considered tyrants. Despite the fact that much of the information we have on this ancient historian is relatively obscure, significant evidence suggests that he suffered one of the earliest known cases of conjunctivitis. Several scholars argue that it was because this went untreated that he succumbed to an early death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Curtius_Rufus



Justin (Latin: Marcus Junianius (or Junianus) Justinus) was a Latin historian who lived under the Roman Empire. His name is mentioned only in the title of his own history, and there it is in the genitive, which would be M. Juniani Justini no matter which nomen he bore.

Of his personal history nothing is known. He is the author of Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, a work described by himself in his preface as a collection of the most important and interesting passages from the voluminous Historiae philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs, written in the time of Augustus by Pompeius Trogus.

His date is uncertain, except that he must have lived after Trogus. He writes that the Romans and the Parthians have divided the world between them; while this is presumably from Trogus, it would be an anachronism after the rise of the Sassanian Empire in the 3rd century AD. Although Latin changed slowly, Justin's language would also be consistent with a date in the 2nd century AD. Ronald Syme argues for a date around 390, immediately before the compilation of the Augustan History, and dismisses the anachronism as unimportant; readers would understand that these passages represented Trogus' time, not their own.[1]

The work of Trogus is lost; but the prologi or arguments of the text are preserved by Pliny and other writers. Although the main theme of Trogus was the rise and history of the Macedonian monarchy, Justin yet permitted himself considerable freedom of digression, and thus produced an idiosyncratic anthology instead of a mundane summary (or 'epitome') of the work.

The Eleventh Edition of Encyclopædia Britannica concluded that his history contained much valuable information and that the style, though far from perfect, is clear and occasionally elegant. The book was much used in the Middle Ages, when the author was sometimes confused with Justin Martyr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(historian)



Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (/ˈtroʊɡəs/), known as Pompeius Trogus, Pompey Trogue, or Trogue Pompey, was a 1st-century BC Roman historian of the Celtic tribe of the Vocontii in Gallia Narbonensis, flourished during the age of Augustus, nearly contemporary with Livy.

His principal work was Historiae Philippicae in forty-four books, so called because the Macedonian empire founded by Philip II is the central theme of the narrative. This was a general history of those parts of the world that came under the sway of Alexander and his successors. Trogus began with a legendary Ninus, founder of Nineveh, and ended at about the same point as Livy (AD 9). Justin wrote an epitome of Trogus' lost work, and in the manuscripts of Justin's work a series of prologi or summaries of the books by an unknown hand has been preserved. The last event recorded by Justin is the recovery of the Roman standards captured by the Parthians in 20 BC. Ethnographical and geographical digressions were such a feature of the work that it developed the unwarranted reputation of being a universal history, never Trogus' intention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Pompeius_Trogus



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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
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.

You are a fucking idiot whose feeble attempts to draw false analogies shows you for the desperate Jesus apologist that you are as you flail about grasping at straws for your stawman. You either fail to grasp context, or you knowingly ignore it; neither speaks well of you.



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

Once again, a bad analogy under a different context is still a bad analogy under a different context. The inscriptions noted that Alexander was actually there. Read it again dumbass...

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"



(05-11-2014 02:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Who wrote about Jesus? His followers, members of his specific cult.

Who wrote about Alexander? Historians and biographers, who were not part of any Alexander worshiping cult, and not all of whom were even Greek, and they drew from primary sources (like Alexander's generals) which are sadly lost to us. We have coins dated to Alexander's reign, we have attestation and archaeological evidence of his passing in Egypt and Mesopotamia that matches the time in question. While there are conflicting bits and one might like to nit-pick whether or not he actually faced mounted Elephants in India, was there a King of Macedonia named Alexander that went on a successful military campaign that took him at least that far east? Beyond any reasonable doubt.

Was he born of a virgin and the son of Zeus? Yeah, doubt the hell out of that.

So you can take your 9th Commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness) and shove it up your ass. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-11-2014, 04:29 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Evolution kills... your sources are still separated by 1500 years from Alexander's lifetime:

Wrong... your earliest existing manuscripts dont come from the first century as you seem to be implying. Your EARLIEST is 10th century... the rest are later.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc...htm#Arrian

Quote:Arrian

The Anabasis of Alexander was written in 7 books ca. 146 AD. The Indica is transmitted as book 8 of the work. The manuscripts on which the text is based are:


A Vienna. It was corrected later (=A2) 12-13 th century
B Paris, gr. 1753. A copy of A; a lacuna in it corresponds exactly to one page of A 15 th century
C Constantinople. Also a copy of A. 15 th century


Plutarch

Quote:Plutarch

This author lived in the 2nd century AD.

The Parallel Lives

The manuscripts of this collection of biographies are:


Sg Monastery of St. Germains-des-Prés, Departement de Loire. Parchment. Contains 15 of the Lives. 10th c.
S Monastery of Seitenstetten, Austria. Parchment. Contains 16 lives. The best ms. Only known since 1870. 11th
A Paris, BNF graecus 1671. Parchment. Contains all the Morals and the Lives. 13th
C Paris, BNF graecus 1672. Parchment. Contains all the Lives. 13th
D Paris, BNF graecus 1674. Parchment. Contains all the Lives. 16th
Fa Paris, BNF gr. 1676. Derived from S, and used for the Stephanus edition. 15th


http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc...icilus.htm

Diodorus

Quote: Rome, Vatican Library Vaticanus gr. 130. Parchment, 360x260mm. Binding Leroy 20C1. 28 lines per page. According to Mariella Menchelli it is in the same hand as Ms. Parisinus gr. 668, copied in 954 by a certain priest John. Contains books 1-5 minus the summary of book 1. Prefaced by a 14th century paper leaf with a note about Diodorus borrowed from the Bibliotheca of Photius. The titles and summaries are in small uncial. It arrived at the Vatican library in 1553.
Only an indirect copy is known, #9, and, later, some folios of #10. The former gave rise to further mss.
10 th century (middle)




http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/...s-COM_0070

Curtius Rufus, Quintus

Quote:A single Late Antique codex that is no longer extant survived into the Middle Ages. By way of another late 8th cent. manuscript, which is also lost, it laid the foundations for the manuscript...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 04:33 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Who would have thought such a pointless strawman as the age of the original documents would have so much mileage.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
05-11-2014, 04:38 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 04:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 03:26 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 03:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How Christian of you. Thumbsup Religion did a lot for you I see.


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

blah blah... I already did... moron
I gave you 12 extrabiblical sources AND documents dating to the first century... in Alexanders 1500 year time period between his lifetime and the earliest manuscript mentioning him, he is SWAMPED by THOUSANDS for Christ.

you need to go back and read... the only important person IN this thread (The OP)saw it, and that's good enough for me Wink

You did not, Liar-For-Jebus. Were you always this way, or did religion make you this way ? You gave "the usual" copy-pasta list of crap sources that have all been debunked. Actually the "important person" in this thread are all the anonymous readers / guests reading your pathetic posts, wondering why a supposed "Christian" is calling people "morons", and can't discuss even ONE of the objections to ANY of the "supposed" sources, and instead of being able to engage in a real debate, DEMANDS answers to the same set of idiotic questions, (all of which have been answered here). Please keep it up. You do atheism more good than you could imagine.

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
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-11-2014, 04:40 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 04:33 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  Who would have thought such a pointless strawman as the age of the original documents would have so much mileage.

Exactly. I'm thinking... so what if he didn't exist? Why does that matter?

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-11-2014, 04:56 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 05:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 04:29 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Evolution kills... your sources are still separated by 1500 years from Alexander's lifetime:

Wrong... your earliest existing manuscripts dont come from the first century as you seem to be implying. Your EARLIEST is 10th century... the rest are later.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc...htm#Arrian

Quote:Arrian

The Anabasis of Alexander was written in 7 books ca. 146 AD. The Indica is transmitted as book 8 of the work. The manuscripts on which the text is based are:


A Vienna. It was corrected later (=A2) 12-13 th century
B Paris, gr. 1753. A copy of A; a lacuna in it corresponds exactly to one page of A 15 th century
C Constantinople. Also a copy of A. 15 th century


Plutarch

Quote:Plutarch

This author lived in the 2nd century AD.

The Parallel Lives

The manuscripts of this collection of biographies are:


Sg Monastery of St. Germains-des-Prés, Departement de Loire. Parchment. Contains 15 of the Lives. 10th c.
S Monastery of Seitenstetten, Austria. Parchment. Contains 16 lives. The best ms. Only known since 1870. 11th
A Paris, BNF graecus 1671. Parchment. Contains all the Morals and the Lives. 13th
C Paris, BNF graecus 1672. Parchment. Contains all the Lives. 13th
D Paris, BNF graecus 1674. Parchment. Contains all the Lives. 16th
Fa Paris, BNF gr. 1676. Derived from S, and used for the Stephanus edition. 15th


http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc...icilus.htm

Diodorus

Quote: Rome, Vatican Library Vaticanus gr. 130. Parchment, 360x260mm. Binding Leroy 20C1. 28 lines per page. According to Mariella Menchelli it is in the same hand as Ms. Parisinus gr. 668, copied in 954 by a certain priest John. Contains books 1-5 minus the summary of book 1. Prefaced by a 14th century paper leaf with a note about Diodorus borrowed from the Bibliotheca of Photius. The titles and summaries are in small uncial. It arrived at the Vatican library in 1553.
Only an indirect copy is known, #9, and, later, some folios of #10. The former gave rise to further mss.
10 th century (middle)




http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/...s-COM_0070

Curtius Rufus, Quintus

Quote:A single Late Antique codex that is no longer extant survived into the Middle Ages. By way of another late 8th cent. manuscript, which is also lost, it laid the foundations for the manuscript...

That's not all of the evidence you ignorant troglodyte.

Coins, inscribed with ALEXANDROU (of Alexander) and ALEXANDROU BASILEWS (of Alexander the King), dated to the reign of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia. (325-323 BCE)

[Image: Alexander_lifetime.jpg]

Apparently neither one of you can read for shit...



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.

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.

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

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-11-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 03:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who wrote about Alexander? Historians and biographers, who were not part of any Alexander worshiping cult, and not all of whom were even Greek, and they drew from primary sources (like Alexander's generals)

Plenty of historians, even non-christian historians and scholars have written about Jesus, like Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, they may be doing so thousands of years later, but who cares if this is done recently, or few hundred years after Jesus death, they all rely on the same bias sources, in your case by the writings of one of his supposed followers, a pro-alexander general, whose writing no longer exist today. The text may have been attributed to one of his generals, but likely it may have been a false attribution, or someone who wrote about him, pretending to be a one of his generals to give his fictional account some authority, a common occurrence at the time.

The fact is we don't have any of these primary sources, or reproductions of these primary sources, we merely have the writings of those typically a hundred years removed from the fact making supposed references to these sources, but who were also given to exaggerations. The fact that we don't have these primary sources, gives us enough room to be sitting on fence on the issue, we should acknowledge that we don't know. Anyone attempting to lay claim to know is being dishonest.

Listen I'm not trying to argue that Alexander was a myth, it could possibly have been, but the thrust of my argument is that we don't have the primary sources writing of his accounts and deeds, so we have no way to verify the accuracy of the later individuals referencing them. These writers are far from partial, and hardly objective.

Quote:They show that she existed as a goddess they believed in, sure. But there was never a claim that she actually existed during a set time in history as a Queen of Athens,

There were plenty of accounts of her appearances and interactions , in all sorts of writings at the time. She may not have been attributed as the queen of Athens, but neither was Dionysus believed to be the jewish messiah according to some first century Jews. Your argument seems to be that if she was attributed to being the queen of Athens, since queens of athens always existed, then we should believe she existed as well. And if individuals claims she existed during that time in history, than we should agree she did exist too.

But using this reasoning, it follows that jewish messiah claimants always existed as historical persons, so this should lead us to assume that Jesus existed, since he was a messiah claimant. And various individuals, various references christian and otherwise place his existence at the same period in history. Your line of reasoning suggests that this would show that someone existed rather than not, or at the very least these aspects make compelling evidence for their existence.

But of course we know this line of reasoning doesn't work for Jesus, in the same it wouldn't work here either for Alexander or Athena if she was seen as the queen of Athens. If such things can be used as compelling evidence in support of historicity, than you can't deny their use when used for other persons.

Quote:Except that those campaigns actually happened, and they are attested to and attribute to one Alexander King of Macedonia. So what are you going to say? That the campaigns didn't actually happen? Or that they all universally miss-attributed them to the wrong person?

Yes, just like the various saying and teachings found in multiple gospels, were all universally miss-attributed to the wrong person. Just as references to James as Jesus brother in Paul, Justin Martyr, Josephus, were are universally wrong attributions. Just like the christian movement as a whole, is universally miss-attributed to the same founder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: