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, 10:23 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Quote:Bibliotheca historica (Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική, "Historical Library"), is a work of universal history by Diodorus Siculus. It consisted of forty books, which were divided into three sections. The first six books are geographical in theme, and describe the history and culture of Egypt (book I), of Mesopotamia, India, Scythia, In the next section (books VII - XVII), he recounts the history of the World starting with the Trojan War, down to the death of Alexander the Great.and Arabia (II), of North Africa (III), and of Greece and Europe (IV - VI). The last section (books XVII to the end) concerns the historical events from the successors of Alexander down to either 60 BC or the beginning of Caesar's Gallic War in 59 BC. (The end has been lost, so it is unclear whether Diodorus reached the beginning of the Gallic War, as he promised at the beginning of his work, or, as evidence suggests, old and tired from his labors he stopped short at 60 BC.) He selected the name "Bibliotheca" in acknowledgement that he was assembling a composite work from many sources. The authors he drew from, who have been identified, include: Hecataeus of Abdera, Ctesias of Cnidus, Ephorus, Theopompus, Hieronymus of Cardia, Duris of Samos, Diyllus, Philistus, Timaeus, Polybius and Posidonius.

Diodorus' immense work has not survived intact: we have the first five books and books 11 through 20. The rest exists only in fragments preserved in Photius and the excerpts of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

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

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...7A*.html#1
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:23 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 10:18 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Sure and Rome didn't burn Christians right? Tongue

[Image: Christianity%20(spread%20of%20400-800).jpg]

Spread through the world as in the Roman empire moron lmao... If it can be said Rome ruled the world, and yes this is said, then yes it can also be said Christianity spread worldwide

http://www.worldcat.org/title/what-life-...c/37043963

Quote:What life was like when Rome ruled the world : the Roman Empire, 100 BC - AD 200


http://www.christianity.com/church/churc...29561.html

Quote:How did the early Christian church survive? Humanly speaking, the odds were all stacked against it.

It was unthinkable that a small, despised movement from a corner of Palestine could move out to become the dominant faith of the mighty Roman Empire, an empire steeped in fiercely defended traditional pagan religions. The spread of the Christian church in its earliest centuries is one of the most amazing phenomena in all of human history. The church was considered a religio prava , an illegal and depraved religion. Wave after wave of persecution was unleashed to squash it. At least two of the persecutions were empire-wide and intended to destroy the church.
So how did this young fledgling movement make it? [/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Quote: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.


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.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...david.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:31 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  If it can be said Rome ruled the world, and yes this is said, then yes it can also be said Christianity spread worldwide

Just because something can be said doesn't make it true you cockwomble.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
05-11-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:18 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 10:17 AM)Rik Wrote:  It didn't spread across the world by the end of the first century. Are you completely ignorant or are you delusional?

Sure and Rome didn't burn Christians right? Tongue

So you are claiming that by the end of the 1st century Christianity could be found in North and South America, China, Australia, new Zealand, Japan, and Hawaii as well as South Africa and Madagascar?

You know what across the world means right?

Edit: lol @ Rome = World.

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, 10:39 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:34 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 10:31 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  If it can be said Rome ruled the world, and yes this is said, then yes it can also be said Christianity spread worldwide

Just because something can be said doesn't make it true you cockwomble.

Ahhh there goes your double standard again lmao... The entire WORLD says rome ruled the world even though they didn't rule every nook of it. And Christianity spread across the roman empire in the first century... therefore in the same way rome ruled the world, Christianity spread across the world in the first century.

Your double standards are quite hilarious. Iv been told people enjoy watching you guys squirm and fume impotently because you have to be corrected in every post. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Ahhh there goes your double standard again lmao... The entire WORLD says rome ruled the world even though they didn't rule every nook of it. And Christianity spread across the roman empire in the first century... therefore in the same way rome ruled the world, Christianity spread across the world in the first century.

Rome didn't rule the world and nobody who actually understands the traditional use of the word "world" makes that claim.

Rome didn't even rule everywhere that was known to them, not by a long shot.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
05-11-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 10:34 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  Just because something can be said doesn't make it true you cockwomble.

Ahhh there goes your double standard again lmao... The entire WORLD says rome ruled the world even though they didn't rule every nook of it. And Christianity spread across the roman empire in the first century... therefore in the same way rome ruled the world, Christianity spread across the world in the first century.

Your double standards are quite hilarious. Iv been told people enjoy watching you guys squirm and fume impotently because you have to be corrected in every post. Tongue

So you will retract the statement that it spread worldwide? Yes or no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rik's post
05-11-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  The entire WORLD says rome ruled the world
No it does not you fucking Idiot, China's Han Dynasty says hello. If it ruled across the entire world they would not have to be fighting wars of conquest to expand the Empire you absolute cumwaffle.

(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  even though they didn't rule every nook of it.
Editors Note: Please be aware that in this example "nook" refers to 90% of the world.

(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  . therefore in the same way rome ruled the world, Christianity spread across the world
So we are in agreement that seeing as how Rome did not "rule the world" (china still thinks your fucking stupid) then, in the same way, Christianity did not spread across the world.
Good glad we got that cleared up.


(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Your double standards are quite hilarious. Iv been told people enjoy watching you guys squirm and fume impotently because you have to be corrected in every post. Tongue
The voices in your head are not reliable sources you troglodyte goat rapist.

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 10:39 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Iv been told people enjoy watching you guys squirm and fume impotently because you have to be corrected in every post. Tongue


Well this will be an easy one.

Who told you this?
Who watches us squirm and fume impotently?

Go on, or was it another pathological lie off the top of your head?

I want verifiable details.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: