If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 10:06 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 09:55 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Because in this thread, it was PROVEN that by 1100 AD Je4sus has and STILL has 12,000 manuscripts documenting Him,

(06-11-2014 10:01 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  So whatcha think about Jesus's landslide over Alexander? VERY impressive eh?

20,000 manuscripts to Alexanders 3 by 1100 AD???

Everyone sees clearly that you're just making shit up.

Because you have nothing. Well, you do have lies.

Everyone important... the OP, saw it...howd YOU miss it? lmao
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 09:56 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  What wolfiebutt displays is classic conspiracy-nut behavior. Making unsupported assertions, screaming at and insulting those who don't accept them, making shit up, 'justifications' that twist and torture facts to match his pre-imagined reality, ignoring any inconvenient facts, dismissing credible sources, and so on.


Obvious conspiracy kook is obvious.

WaaWaa... crybaby bitch
You guys just aren't used to having your asses handed to you... but no worries youll get used to it Smile

.

That's what all the conspiracy nuts say. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 10:06 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Everyone important... the OP, saw it...howd YOU miss it? lmao

And no reading comprehension.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out what's wrong with your misunderstanding... again.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
06-11-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 10:06 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  So whatcha think of Jesus 20,000 Alexander 3?

We've already told you what we think of that; you're just to stupid to get it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-11-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 09:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  First you call Jesus and now you defile his name too. Yeah, you're just awesome.

Actually Jesus if he existed (he didn't) he was a 30+ year old single male that hung around 12 other 30+ single males in a society where marriage was arranged looong before then and not being married was considered taboo.

So it's likely Jesus sucked so my cocks he had an entirely protein diet.

I'm OK with him doing that too, you go girlfriend.Drinking Beverage

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
06-11-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 10:01 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 08:29 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  But why would wolf invite his friends to a massive display of his own stubborn ignorance? Consider

If they have any semblance of intelligence, they're reconsidering their friendship. If not, they're either complete idiots or incomplete idiots, and I'm not sure which is worse.

Just think... 300 Christians armed with this information, and how to take it to an atheist, marching through the internet shutting down every atheist forum out there

BRAHAHAHAHAHA

^^^ My evil genius plan to take over the Atheist bowel movement.

So whatcha think about Jesus's landslide over Alexander? VERY impressive eh?

20,000 manuscripts to Alexanders 3 by 1100 AD??? Dayum that's gotta hurt Tongue
LaughatLaughatLaughat

lol, delusional, egotistical and misinformed, great combo. 300 Xtians armed with what info? Your weak sauce posit that because several delusional cult members wrote some fairy tale down, which has been disproved, out numbers the number of writings about Alexander? This is called a straw man, look it up.

You, and your alleged 300 facebook fans couldn't hold up in a real debate if your life depended on it. You know why? I know the historicity of the myth better than you, I can substantiate that, and I can completely eviscerate the basis of your faith. Your bigfoot, um, I mean "jesus the Christ" myth has ZERO evidence to substantiate that he 1) existed outside of mythology and mysticism, 2) was the son of a unproven diety 3) that all major stories of the bible are true.

Exodus? never happened. Global ELE flood? Never happened. Moses? Never existed. Noah? Never existed. King Herod's infanticide upon hearing of Jesus's birth? never happened. Here, because I pity you, let me show you where your jesus story came from...

Romulus
Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.
In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Wolfy,

As I stated before, your faith is losing...

Religions are losing members - "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling. The challenge to Christianity in the U.S. does not come from other religions but rather from a rejection of all forms of organized religion. The “Nones” (no stated religious preference, atheist, or agnostic) continue to grow, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008, to over 21% in 2012. 34% off all US adults under 30 are unaffiliated."

University of Arizona and Northwestern University recent study projects the extinction of religion in Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland. They will be entirely comprised of non-believers. The study also found that "Americans without affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states." Religions is declining because of the increase in choice, education, information, bad press, the idea that it is useless or counterproductive and the idea that its fundamental principles are illogical."

Is religion dying? By Diana Butler Bass - “In the last dozen years, American religious institutions have undergone a myriad of crises--abuse scandals, conflicts, schism, and partisan political entanglement, to name a few--resulting in a great religious recession. Poll after poll reveals that organized religions --mainline Protestant, evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Jewish --are in varying states of disarray and decline. Sadness, even doom, has gripped many congregations, as the formerly faithful disaffiliate, and those who remain struggle to pay clergy and fix leaky roofs. The unaffiliated and atheists have been rising for thirty years.”

Atheism on the rise around the globe - "According to a new poll, religiosity worldwide is declining while more people say they are atheists. In the United States, a growing number consider themselves non-believers.

Atheism is on the rise in the United States and elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according to a new worldwide poll. “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” conducted by WIN-Gallup International headquartered in Switzerland, found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 – when the poll was last conducted – to 60 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person."

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
and because I pity Wolfy's lack of knowledge, here is another crumb for you...

Daniel
The Book of Daniel is often paired with the Book of Revelation as providing the road map of future end-time events. Many alleged prophecies in Daniel were fulfilled, but is that because Daniel was a divinely inspired seer? Critical scholars see a more mundane explanation. Daniel might actually be a Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. His so-called prophecies were made ex eventu, or after the fact, so that he could pass himself off as a genuine seer. The book itself betrays more than one author. Chapters 1–6 were written in Aramaic, while chapters 7–12 are in Hebrew. Daniel makes many historical errors when talking about the Babylonian period, the time in which he supposedly lived. For example, he claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.

Also, Belshazzar was a crown prince but never a king, contrary to Daniel’s claim. In Daniel 5:30, Daniel writes that a certain Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. It was actually Cyrus the Great, a Persian and not a Mede, who overthrew Babylon. On the other hand, Daniel writes about events of the Hellenistic era with extreme accuracy. Chapter 11, presented as prophecy, is on the mark in every detail. This leads to the conclusion that Daniel was witness to these events but not to those of the Babylonian period, on which he is vague and unfamiliar.

Scholars thus place the writings of Daniel at around 167–164 B.C., during the persecution of the Jews by Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The book was meant as inspirational fiction to encourage the Jews in their time of trial. Daniel did take a shot at making a real prophecy, predicting the death of Antiochus in the Holy Land. This genuine prophecy turned out to be wrong. Antiochus actually died in Persia in 164 B.C.

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

Do you see how these books were put together not by whom you think, not when you think and how they are allegorical writings based on parables, meant to drive a message and purposely designed in a hubris attempt to give them credibility? This was the driving force for me losing my faith, an intelligent person can't ignore facts, and the facts have been laid out. The more I learned, the more I thought, the less I believed. Your thoughts?

Works cited:

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

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

SEE, that is how it is done, my little amateur.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 10:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 10:06 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  So whatcha think of Jesus 20,000 Alexander 3?

We've already told you what we think of that; you're just to stupid to get it.

Too bad for you silent readers are laughing their asses off at you Smile

so I wonder why youre ignorant enough to believe in alexander the great? He only has 3 sources by 1100 AD, and the earliest was just the 10tth century... SOMEONE MADE HIM UP!!!

He was pulled outta SOMEONEs ass... were you there? Was it YOUR ass?

O i gotta stop, i slay myself laughing, fking with you guys.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
The troll is getting boring now. He needs to find a new way to entertain us before he starts getting ignored.

I liked it when I managed to get him frothing at the mouth but now he is full chess playing pigeon mode.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: