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, 05:58 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 04:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You do atheism more good than you could imagine.

Ain't that the truth.Laugh out load

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
05-11-2014, 07:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 07:22 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Except that those were not the only sources we have today, nor the only primary sources that they claimed to have worked from either. Nice try at a false equivocation, but you fail once again.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Why is it likely false? You makes claims without backing up your assumptions with reasons or evidence. Whereas one can argue that the Gospel of Mark falls within a well established precedent of euhemerization and the other mystery cults of that time, the same cannot be said for Alexander the Great. You are making stretches in reason and logic that lack any foundation, entirely ignore their respective contexts, and it reeks of desperation.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, people attempting to make false equivocations to further their own ends are being dishonest. You entirely ignore the separate contexts and the other archaeological primary source for Alexander of Macedonia, sources of evidence that are entirely missing for any supposed Jesus of Nazareth.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, what you are doing is attempting a terrible false equivocation; emphasis on the 'trying' bit, because once again you are failing miserably.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 03:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Sources? And where those appearances tied to an actual, physical, mortal Athena, couched in actual history with matching archaeological evidence?

Also let's not forget that Athena was a goddess and lived atop Mt. Olympus with the other gods. She lacks the foundation in history and the archaeological evidence of an actual historical person with exaggerated deeds like Alexander, or the characteristics of purposeful euhemerization like Romulus and other purely mythical figures.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Not at all... Facepalm

You're not even trying anymore, which was your problem last time. You refuse to compare things within similar context, preferring to compare an apple to an orange instead of to another apple; only here it's more like comparing apples and bananas.




(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But using this reasoning,

What reasoning? You have none. Weeping



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...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.

No, just no. Stop it, before you hurt yourself.



(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Why doesn't it work comparing the two? Because you continue to refuse to acknowledge the wider context and the varying amount of evidence we have for the two.

The Gospels were written anonymously, the histories containing Alexander were not. The Gospels were faith literature, written by believers for believers, while the source about Alexander were not. The anonymous Gospels, for which we have evidence of their purposeful alteration and editing by those of the faith, whereas no such evidence of purposeful agenda driven tampering exists for Alexander (exaggeration, sure, but not for the express benefit of a cult worshiping him). We actually have primary archaeological evidence for Alexander (coins, monuments, inscriptions), from non-dependent sources, that can corroborate the existence of Alexander at the time he is claimed to have been King of Macedonia; no such evidence for Jesus. The source we do have for Alexander often cite, claim, and name primary sources, that themselves are attested to by other non-dependent sources.

One of those primary source was Alexander's General, Ptolemy. He isn't just some illiterate unknown Galilean fisherman, he was a Pharaoh of Egypt you ignoramus. But no, I guess all of the evidence surrounding the existence of a Pharaoh and the founder of both the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Ptolemaic Dynasty is all made up too, right?

[Image: 1024px-British_Museum_Egypt_031.jpg]

Totally not a bust of Ptolemy, Pharaoh of Egypt, general and bodyguard to Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia.

[Image: 1024px-Tetradrachm_Ptolemaeus_I_obverse_...GM2157.jpg]

And this totally isn't a Ptolemy coin featuring the profile of Alexander with an elephant scalp, celebrating their totally non-existent successful campaign in India.

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




(05-11-2014 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 03:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Except that those Josephus passages are interpolations and later Christian forgeries that don't appear in the earliest copies, which we know because earlier church fathers (like Origin) complain that Josephus said nothing about Jesus! So there is that you dumbass...

All that is required to explain the expansion and success of the Jesus cult is the belief in a Jesus, real or otherwise. Mere belief in an Alexander the Great, without him actually having existed, not only fails to explain the evidence we do have, but also raises more questions than it answers. This is why Alexander the Great and his successful military campaigns are said to be historically dependent, but some obscure and unknown religious zealot who has a cult attached to him that doesn't expand until centuries after his supposed life and death, is not historically dependent.

Apples and bananas man, apples and bananas... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-11-2014, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 09:02 AM by cjlr.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
This whole line of argument is so dumb as fuck I can't believe anyone's making it seriously.

I mean, we all know OP - oh, sorry, "wolfbitn"; wouldn't want to get those two confused, amiright? - wouldn't know where shit came from if his toilet faced a mirror, but come the fuck on, Tomasia.

I note ol' wolfie is still flogging the manuscript date versus textual date horse, even though it died more than 1500 years before the oldest surviving reference was written. No more need be said.

There actually were lots of claims made to Alexander's divinity, and funnily enough, we don't accept those.
(ditto, e.g., Caesar, etc.)

We might consider by way of contrast Socrates, another figure the lowest grade of d-list apologists might make, er, "arguments" about - a case where the man's specific personal existence and life history is insignificant when compared to the body of work coming into existence and being so attributed. Socrates might not have existed, but the books with his name on them sure as hell did.

The Persian empire existed until the 340s BC. Then for some reason it stopped existing. Rather notable facts, those things. And for some reason Makedonians took over from Greece to Pakistan. Probably you've heard of some of them. Descendents of Antigonos ruled Makedonia itself for another 200 years. Descendents of Seleukos and Ptolemaios ruled Syria and Egypt for the next 300 years. They refer back in monumental, numismatic, and literary sources to the person of Alexander within living memory. Wait a minute - isn't "nobody could make shit up within living memory" a favourite d-list apologist argument? Uh oh. Ptolemaios stole the man's body; something of it was exhibited in Alexandria - wait, whole cities named for him? From Egypt to Turkey to Iraq to Afghanistan, you say? I wonder where that meme came from. Eh; probably just coincidence, right?

Now, either somebody existed and brought about those changes, or... what? What sort of lunatic alternative has anyone ever seriously proposed?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
05-11-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Quote: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,

You're simply as dumb as a bag of cunt hair. Why don't you run along. The adults are talking.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 09:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:49 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thank Jebus religion has done so much for you, made such a loving person of you. I wish I could get religion and be so honest and charitable. Weeping

There is not one external unquestioned historical reference to your Jebus. Not one. Your analogy is false. Alexander actually did something. Your fake Jebus did nothing. Alexander was written about by his ENEMIES. Jebus was only written about by believers.

Get it ? Retard.

The OP already showed you one... I can show you several more... and have in other threads you friggin moron.

They are only questioned by morons that don't want to believe Jesus existed, and you call them reliable in everything else... its not my fault you disagree with almost 90 percent of the world

You have not provided one good one. As for your "90 %" goes, retard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

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
05-11-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:49 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  The OP already showed you one... I can show you several more... and have in other threads you friggin moron.

They are only questioned by morons that don't want to believe Jesus existed, and you call them reliable in everything else... its not my fault you disagree with almost 90 percent of the world

You have not provided one good one. As for you "90 %" goes, retard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Quite true - but you should have just asked him for a citation on the 90% figure.
(since, you know, there isn't one)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-11-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 05:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, naturally.

Since he just keeps repeating the same shit over and over again, it's no surprise that he's received the same responses. Which he will no doubt continue to ignore wholesale.

And thus, the circle of trolling continues.
(bold added by me)

Yeah, that was my point. No matter how many times he's corrected, he keeps repeating the same wrong information.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 02:38 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  ...
The written documentation for Christ is as early as roughly 10 years after His crucifixion...
...

I see you're still repeating that same LIE despite it having been pointed out multiple times that it works out to at best 17 years by your dates.
How do you plan to explain your continual and willful ignoring of his commandment to your beloved Jesus?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 09:35 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 02:38 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  ...
The written documentation for Christ is as early as roughly 10 years after His crucifixion...
...

I see you're still repeating that same LIE despite it having been pointed out multiple times that it works out to at best 17 years by your dates.
How do you plan to explain your continual and willful ignoring of his commandment to your beloved Jesus?

Lying for Jesus, Impulse. Lying for Jesus.

How any of the benighted shambling cuntwaste thinking themselves evangelising came into the pathological misconception that that would convince anyone, I will never understand.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
05-11-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(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.

It could be 200th century and it would still be earlier than anything credible you have for Jesus... or did you miss that ROTFLMFAO. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: