If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 12:12 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:02 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Now you see EVERYTHIING atheist philosophy has to offer you... you also see what it turns you into. Absolutely blind to truth. Ask them why they cant say "Child rape is never good"?

They don't believe in absolute truth either... so that cant be a true statement. I actually copied where atheists try to show where it IS good.

So no... they cant offer you a good reason to accept the miniscule documentation for a man as important as Alexander, yet reject the volumes of evidence for Jesus. the earliest for Alexander 1500 years removed from his life... while Christ is documented as early as roughly 10 years after his resurrection.

They have no answer for this type of hypocrisy and lack of HONEST scholarship.

Is this you answering yourself? Cause thats just funny....or desperate.

If you're so unhappy here you could yanno.....go.
By all means go elsewhere.
No one forces you to be here.

You should stop tossing the word moron around so much if you're going to act like one.
Stop whining. Nobody cares.

Well we can all see you're too chicken shit to tackle a post from a witch. Aww you poor thing.

Naaaa.....
You're doing a fine job proving yourself an ass without any help from me.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2014 01:21 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:23 AM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  There is abundant documentation for Jesus, compared to almost nothing on Alexander...

"Josephus considered one of the greatest historians of antiquity, independently provides proof and evidence that Jesus was a real person who did exist and also confirms the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate, thus confirming the Biblical account as well."

From Tacitus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (source)


Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.


Non-biblicasl even...still is documented Jesus existed

Lies, been debunked, do some research on it. Here let me give you a head start...

Christian apologetic fan’s most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were ‘The antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘the wars of the Jews’. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen.

Now for Tacitus:

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.


What else you got?

By the way, no one who wrote of jesus knew him...all based on myth, and oral tradition....all debunked, truly.

"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
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-11-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:36 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I call sock puppet.

That's because youre an idiot, only capable of spam and ad hom attacks
If you WERENT a moron/spammer/unarmed bitch with nothing but ad hom to fight with, you would have

1) written to both accounts, showing actual integrity, to ASK

2) go to Admin with your paranoia and ask them to check

Youre a Moron/idiot/little bitch/coward, and unarmed with reason

You must be what? 12 yo? Little child I would spank you on your own faith to such a degree you would be left holding your mouth open while trying to look up the words I used. Don't make me spank you publicly. You come into this forum trying to purport to know something about Xtianity and Xtian doctrine, I am an expert on both and will school you on your own faith. Go play dumbass on some other forum unless you think you can support, substantiate, validate, and articulate your belief beyond childish threats. I have never been bested in a debate, never, you ain't the one either.GO back to school child, take some more classes on Xtianity, and come back when you think you are ready for the big leagues .....amateur.

Put up or shut up

"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
04-11-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:23 AM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  There is abundant documentation for Jesus, compared to almost nothing on Alexander...

"Josephus considered one of the greatest historians of antiquity, independently provides proof and evidence that Jesus was a real person who did exist and also confirms the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate, thus confirming the Biblical account as well."

From Tacitus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (source)


Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.


Non-biblicasl even...still is documented Jesus existed

You smell like a troll, but here you go any way.

There are no contemporary records of Jesus or artifacts that support his existence. There are contemporary records for Alexander as well as artifacts that support his existence.

The Josephus line have been ruled a forgery, by most biblical scholars. The other non-biblical histories mention Christians, not Jesus. These could imply that some guy fits the place of Jesus, but not in the biblical accounts kind of way. All the gospels have been noted to be written well after the life of Jesus, with only two of them being original (Mark and Paul) and the other two (Luke and John)being rewrites of Mark for target audiences.

Having said that I believe there was probably some counter cultural rabbi or several rabbis that the Jesus story was derived from. The supernatural stuff was added to embellish the story to compete with the pagan religions of the time, IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like wazzel's post
04-11-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 12:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

Bullshit... MOST scholars agree that Jesus was a real living historical figure... YOU are in the VAST minority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 12:14 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:08 PM)ohio_drg Wrote:  To be perfectly honest this topic is nothing more than a dead horse around here.

I have seen this debate here and on other sites and it always follows the same pattern, which is why no one is bothering to waste any time with it. You obviously have a computer, the answers you seek are at your fingertips and I for one have no desire to lead you to them kicking and screaming when your are purposely being obtuse.

blah blah more horse shit and blah

The documentation for Alexander is miniscule... DWARFED by the documentation for Christ.
The EARLIEST manuscript detailing Alexander is dated 1500 years after his lifetime... The EARLIEST for Christ dates to the first century.

OVER A DOZEN non Christian sources mention Christ, most of these historians that you most scholars recognize as accurate and reliable in everything else.

So... if you cant address the OP stop trying to derail the OP and just answer the question and show us why youre so hypocritical in your standard of scholarship

NO one who wrote of jesus knew him, no one. I can substantiate that claim to great detail, can you substantiate yours? How about you do some research outside of your favorite delusional Xtian misinformation site, you may be surprised by the truth you find.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
04-11-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:23 AM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  There is abundant documentation for Jesus, compared to almost nothing on Alexander...

Are you retarded?

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Winterwolf00's post
04-11-2014, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2014 01:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 01:23 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

Bullshit... MOST scholars agree that Jesus was a real living historical figure... YOU are in the VAST minority.

Prove it. Let's see the poll of scholars. There is no "body" of secular scholars who even research or debate the subject. That leaves BELIEVERS. Of course believers think he existed. They cannot be objective. Oh well. Try harder, little liar for Jebus.

And BTW, retard, the post was in answer to what you claimed about GENESIS, not Jebus.
Do try to follow along. K ?

Ignorant Fundies such as yourself that *need* to take the OT literally have been debunked now for almost 100 years. You have a mental disorder.
The idea that anything in Genesis can be taken literally has been out on its ass now by ALL the mainline centers of Biblical Scholarship.
It's not even a question taken seriously anymore.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 01:23 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

Bullshit... MOST scholars agree that Jesus was a real living historical figure... YOU are in the VAST minority.
I cow poop your cow poop. Back it up with facts buddy or drop the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 01:20 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:23 AM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  There is abundant documentation for Jesus, compared to almost nothing on Alexander...

"Josephus considered one of the greatest historians of antiquity, independently provides proof and evidence that Jesus was a real person who did exist and also confirms the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross under the orders of Pontius Pilate, thus confirming the Biblical account as well."

From Tacitus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (source)


Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.


Non-biblicasl even...still is documented Jesus existed

You smell like a troll, but here you go any way.

There are no contemporary records of Jesus or artifacts that support his existence. There are contemporary records for Alexander as well as artifacts that support his existence.

The Josephus line have been ruled a forgery, by most biblical scholars. The other non-biblical histories mention Christians, not Jesus. These could imply that some guy fits the place of Jesus, but not in the biblical accounts kind of way. All the gospels have been noted to be written well after the life of Jesus, with only two of them being original (Mark and Paul) and the other two (Luke and John)being rewrites of Mark for target audiences.

Again BULLSHIT... its only declared by those with an agenda against Christianity.. MOST SCHOLARS agree Jesus Lived. You don't question ANY other reference by Josephus and the charge that that ONE part is a forgery is RIDICULOUS because it is based on NOTHING but your wishes...

Quote:Having said that I believe there was probably some counter cultural rabbi or several rabbis that the Jesus story was derived from. The supernatural stuff was added to embellish the story to compete with the pagan religions of the time, IMO.

The Jewish leaders and establishment HATED Christ and Christianity... They had more reason to deny Him than YOU do... Show us the documentation backing your theory rabbis invented Jesus, and tell us why all these historians mention HIIM AND His church? They made it up too???

Morons... hypocrites for accepting documentation for alexander from the 10th 11th and 12th centuries... 1500 years after his lifetime, and telling us our documentation from the first century for Jesus and over a dozen non biblical references doesn't count lmao... LMAO

Im very glad the OP sees you cant account for this scholastic hypocrisy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: