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, 02:13 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 01:56 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 01:32 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  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...


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.

If you are going to continue to be an ass this will be my last response to you.

If you are going to claim most scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure, back it up. Until then it is just you blowing hot air. Saying it over and over again is not going to convince me or anyone else of anything. I have not read all of the works by Josephus, being a former Christian I looked into his supposed references of Jesus as support for my belief. Finding out they are out of context and not in the original made me dig more. All part of a very long deconversion process. You should study it, you will be surprised where it take you.

Jesus was not a Christian, he would have been a Jew. There were no Christians until long after the time of the supposed crucifixion. Paul (Saul) hijacked whatever Christianity was at the time and molded it to his thinking, it was again hijacked by Emperor Constantine and Romanized. Who really knows the intent of the original movement or the actual people involved, there is absolutely no contemporary recorded of any of them.

As for Alexander, there are contemporary records. I know it is just wiki, but they are usually not far off. There is no such reference for Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_t...oriography

Quote:Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[17] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[17] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.[17]


Moron its not about WHEN THEY LIVED... its about the EARLIEST EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS...

You EARLIEST existing manuscript is 10th century... Arrian which you mention is 12th century

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

Quote: 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)
k Florence. Based on A2


You have NOTHING earlier than the 10 century, and you don't even know which one that is Tongue

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Once again I have to ask...

What does having evidence or no evidence for an historical figure have to do with lack of faith that some god is responsible for the existence of the universe?

As for the original poster, I think I'll defer to Wazzel who's answer was fairly clear....

(04-11-2014 01:56 PM)wazzel Wrote:  If you are going to continue to be an ass this will be my last response to you.

If you are going to claim most scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure, back it up. Until then it is just you blowing hot air. Saying it over and over again is not going to convince me or anyone else of anything. I have not read all of the works by Josephus, being a former Christian I looked into his supposed references of Jesus as support for my belief. Finding out they are out of context and not in the original made me dig more. All part of a very long deconversion process. You should study it, you will be surprised where it take you.

Jesus was not a Christian, he would have been a Jew. There were no Christians until long after the time of the supposed crucifixion. Paul (Saul) hijacked whatever Christianity was at the time and molded it to his thinking, it was again hijacked by Emperor Constantine and Romanized. Who really knows the intent of the original movement or the actual people involved, there is absolutely no contemporary recorded of any of them.

As for Alexander, there are contemporary records. I know it is just wiki, but they are usually not far off. There is no such reference for Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_t...oriography

Quote:Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[17] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[17] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.[17]

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 01:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 01:45 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Did you read goodwithoutgod's post about Josephus? Interesting that you skipped right over it when it squashes your "one part" and "nothing but your wishes" claims.

And, by the way, even of the scholars that agree Jesus lived, most don't agree that he was who you think he was.

yup, Jesus was a popular name actually, 1 in 20 were named jesus, I wonder which one he is referring to? Odds are there were more than one that claimed to be a prophet sense it was such a popular name and expounding mythological claims about one self was such a popular past time then..

They referred to the one that was crucified by Pilot Smile

Tacitus says:
Quote: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Josephus and others refer to the same one... Any more questions? Smile

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
I think Wolfie is going to have a lot of explaining to do when he meets Jebus at the pearly gates and has to justify why he lost so many potential converts over so much lying and dishonesty.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Impulse's post
04-11-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
I believe you Wolfbitn when you say that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great than Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
04-11-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:18 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 01:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yup, Jesus was a popular name actually, 1 in 20 were named jesus, I wonder which one he is referring to? Odds are there were more than one that claimed to be a prophet sense it was such a popular name and expounding mythological claims about one self was such a popular past time then..

They referred to the one that was crucified by Pilot Smile

Tacitus says:
Quote: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Josephus and others refer to the same one... Any more questions? Smile

.

yeeeeeah you may want to go back and read my post on that....

"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
04-11-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:19 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I think Wolfie is going to have a lot of explaining to do when he meets Jebus at the pearly gates and has to justify why he lost so many potential converts over so much lying and dishonesty.

No Im very proud of the fact that good sources correct your bullshit... Im very pleased you guys are shown to be scholastic hypocrites. I'm very pleased to show I know MUCH more about this subject than ALL of you combined, and that Im able to even produce the manuscripts from the 10th century talking about Alexander when YOU couldn't.

Hell you guys didn't even know the earliest manuscript for Alexander was from the 10th century. My sources prove the point though, and you cant debunk them with more than "no that's not true"...its all youv got to pull from your ass now.

Im the only one in this thread with credible sources and 90 percent of the world disagrees with you, My scholars outnumber yours, my documents outnumber yours by the thousands... and mine are 1400 years closer to the source.

Yup, very happy here

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 02:29 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2014 02:32 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:25 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 02:19 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I think Wolfie is going to have a lot of explaining to do when he meets Jebus at the pearly gates and has to justify why he lost so many potential converts over so much lying and dishonesty.

No Im very proud of the fact that good sources correct your bullshit... Im very pleased you guys are shown to be scholastic hypocrites. I'm very pleased to show I know MUCH more about this subject than ALL of you combined, and that Im able to even produce the manuscripts from the 10th century talking about Alexander when YOU couldn't.

Hell you guys didn't even know the earliest manuscript for Alexander was from the 10th century. My sources prove the point though, and you cant debunk them with more than "no that's not true"...its all youv got to pull from your ass now.

Im the only one in this thread with credible sources and 90 percent of the world disagrees with you, My scholars outnumber yours, my documents outnumber yours by the thousands... and mine are 1400 years closer to the source.

Yup, very happy here

Smile

Sigh, let me see if our special one can comprehend the basics....

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) 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.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

The odd silence about jesus

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him.

It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

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

Bam, yup, that just happened.

[Image: 315xrie.jpg]

next....

"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
[+] 14 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-11-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
GWOG, prepare to be called a moron. I am done in this thread. I do not debate with asses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
04-11-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:25 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  I'm very pleased to show I know MUCH more about this subject than ALL of you combined, and that Im able to even produce the manuscripts from the 10th century talking about Alexander when YOU couldn't.

I, for one, have never created a sock puppet account. Nor have I claimed to be an expert at something that I'm clearly not. Nor have I willfully run from ignored the strongest posts that prove me wrong. Nor have I refused to accept new knowledge that contradicts previously held views because I preferred to insist above all else that I'm right. So correction, it's only about THOSE things that you know much more. But that's saying nothing of course. Drinking Beverage

(04-11-2014 02:25 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Hell you guys didn't even know the earliest manuscript for Alexander was from the 10th century. My sources prove the point though, and you cant debunk them with more than "no that's not true"...its all youv got to pull from your ass now.

Not playing along with your troll games isn't the same as not knowing. (Nor have I agreed that you are correct.)

(04-11-2014 02:25 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Im the only one in this thread with credible sources and 90 percent of the world disagrees with you, My scholars outnumber yours, my documents outnumber yours by the thousands... and mine are 1400 years closer to the source.

Your numbers keep changing. And so far, I've seen no credible sources from you. With all your dishonesty, you lost credibility a long time ago.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: