Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 12:23 PM)kim Wrote:  ...as I do about "who shot JR".

Your age is showing... Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 12:28 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 12:23 PM)kim Wrote:  ...as I do about "who shot JR".

Your age is showing... Tongue

Yabut... I never saw that show.

However, those "new" Star Trek films are ALL FUCKING WRONG WRONG WRONG!! Blink

I think my case is clear. Dodgy

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
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
16-11-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 11:39 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Free taking a swing at me?, My replies in bold since you seem to be trying to discredit me

“I will quote some more of goodwithoutgod's pasted myther arguments:”

First, I am not a myther, although the concept is interesting

What part of "pasted" eluded you? I know you copy and pasted them from various places online.

Quote:
Quote:Regarding James

Quote:
2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.

Not true:

James 1.1 James, a servant of god and of the lord jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
James 2.1 My brethren, have not the faith of our lord jesus Christ, the lord of glory, with respect of persons

BS, as I said, he only mentions jesus as an introduction, AT the introduction. My point was he does not posit a witness to Christ, just states his belief, it isn’t as if he says, “jesus said blah blah blah as he and I walked down the road to never never land”

Should we think that he should have mentioned Jesus TWICE at the introduction?

The mistake is obvious. Live with it.

Thumbsup


Quote:
Quote:Regarding Peter:


Quite misleading. The text actually demonstrates that Silvanus took dictation from Peter. That does not make Silvanus the author.
“1 Peter 5:12 – By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of god wherein ye stand. 5:13 – The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth marcus my son. 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ jesus. Amen.”

What does that appear like to you? A signature, a closing by the author…Silvanus

Ummm ... no. "By Silvanas ... I (Peter) have written ..."

It is blatantly obvious.


Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this).

This is an example of how a myther's mind simply cascades into oblivion. Since mythers claim the whole bible is fake, should they use a fable (Acts) to confirm another fable (Peter)?
Where did I claim to be a myther?

Again, what part of "pasted" eluded you? Did I say YOU were a myther? OR did I say you "pasted" those arguments?

You decide. Consider

Quote:I did use Carriers book for a citation, as well as like 9 other books, these points aren’t even from Carrier, or any “myther”. These are just facts. The reference to ACTS was to demonstrate to the believer that even within their holy book it states that he was an ignorant and illiterate peasant, thus could not have personally written those scriptures…get it?

Again the argument is assuming that Peter was not the actual author. That's been demonstrated as false.


Quote:
Quote:Even if what the myther claims was true regarding Peter's illiteracy, well then of course it is evidence as to WHY Peter had Silvanus take dictation. Duh!

citation please

Sure!

"By Silvanas ... I (Peter) have written ..."

I suppose I could try to make the word "written" jump up and down, but you know ... Gasp


Quote:
Quote:Regarding Jude:

Quote:
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.

This assessment assumes many things without evidence.

Jude could not write? Evidence please. He was living under Roman rule, subjugated to Roman customs and exposed to Roman languages.

There is simply no evidence that Jude was unable to write.

provide evidence he could, take a few theology classes in Christianity, historicity of jesus, as I have, and you may learn these things, I will not waste too much time regurgitating lessons to another atheist

I am not the one making the claim that he was unable to write, and I have taken numerous classes in Christianity, HISTORICITY, et al.

The argument cannot make this assumption without direct evidence.

Quote:
Quote:Regarding Josephus:

Quote:
[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.

Another remarkable example of myther stupidity.

facts can be inconvenient can’t they?

You call these facts? I call it garbage. Any actual evidence that Eusebius interpolated this text? NONE. GARBAGE.

Also, you act as if "hearsay" has any importance in ancient history. Most of ancient history was wrtiten via history, with the exception of some notable historians such as Tacitus.

Dude, history is not a fucking court of criminal law where hearsay is not admissible. We are not prosecuting a criminal here. Applying criminal law to this is about as fucking retarded as applying it to science, math, or any other subject.

This is history, not the fucking Supreme Court.


Quote:
Quote:Firstly, what's the point of claiming that Josephus' birth date puts him out of the range of the crucifixion of Jesus if the myther claims that Jesus never existed at all?

again, not a myther, and this information has nothing to do with mythism, and was not taken from Dr carrier’s book. The point here again, is NO one who wrote of jesus knew him, thus it is all based on hearsay…how is this fact beyond your grasp?

Judge: Who is the criminal defendant in this case?
Myther: History, your honor.
Judge: Fuckoff. That will be all.

Quote:
Quote:Secondly, this statement gives the impression that "most" scholars think the mentioning of Jesus by Josephus was a "total" interpolation, which is a blatant lie.

no sorry bud, again, the VAST majority do not even try to refute this anymore, the majority of pseudepigrapha, interpolations and and allegorical writings have been identified, validated and substantiated

Really? I mean no ... SERIOUSLY? Here:

"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[5][6][7][8][10] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations."

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

That's just one, and there are dozens.

Now show me just ONE credible reference that contests this?

Quote:
Quote:The truth is, in the first mention of Jesus in Antiquities, most scholars think it was a "partial" interpolation, and that some zealous Christian scribe altered the text to portray Josephus as being a follower of Jesus. Most scholars believe and accept that something was written about Jesus here.


The second mention of Jesus by antiquities is virtually uncontested, except my mythers who's arguments are so desperate as to defy all reason, and embarrass themselves hilariously.

I could go on and on, but what's the point? It is so easy to demonstrate that the myther arguments are not arguments at all, and in most cases are designed with complete deception for the average Joe.

Flavius Josephus
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.


All of the above bullshit has been addressed by me and a few history students years ago. Below is the link. I am FathomFFI at that link.

I can go on and on and on, since I wrote up a virtual book on these subjects years ago. You can go to the following link where me and a few students got banned from that idiot mythicist Rook Hawkins website because the poor bastard was bent over and forced to answer the question of "Who's Yo' Daddy?"

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

Bowing

Quote:
Quote:Another such absolutely ridiculous argument is this, and here's a hypothetical scenario:

Myther: Nothing about Jesus was written by a contemporary.
Me: Really? I suppose Paul was not a contemporary?
Myther: But ... but ... but ..
Me: Yeah, whatever. Shut the fuck up.
well you certainly are proud of your ignorance on this subject. When did paul and jesus meet? Perhaps you can set the theological world on fire and present that evidence? If you try to say on the road to Damascus I am taking away your atheist card

You see, that's the part where I say, "Yeah whatever. Shut the fuck up." So tell me, was the question of "Were there any contemporary writers about Jesus" answered when I said Paul was a contemporary or not?

Dude, it doesn't fucking matter if Paul met Jesus or not, for the question has been conclusively demonstrated to have been answered in the affirmative.

Quote:your inability to comprehend known facts truly is baffling, are you sure you aren’t a closet xtian? Perhaps you should choose better whom you attack within the TTA forums, I can, and will beat you with the knowledge stick

Known facts? LOL

Myther bullshit. Laughat

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
I would need to see exactly which scholar has established that Paul met the Jesus he wrote about.


I also want to have a little talk with the idiot who wrote those new Star Trek movies. Dodgy

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
16-11-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 03:58 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They did it because that's how they maintained an empire. Is there evidence they killed a higher percentage of Jews than any other nation they conquered ? Did they indiscriminately kill Jews any more than they did anyone else ?

That's not the point Buck. The point is very simple.

They killed them because they hated them. It doesn't matter who else they hated. It's irrelevant.

You have studied enough to know how the Romans were. They were based on religious philosophy just like almost all other cultures. Pliny's letters demonstrate their hatred of the Christian sect, and how they persecuted them and forced them to worship the Roman gods instead of Christ, or they killed them.

You don't kill people because you love them.

Big Grin

Your argument appears circular.

They killed him because they hated him.
They must have hated him because they killed him.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 03:58 PM)Free Wrote:  That's not the point Buck. The point is very simple.

They killed them because they hated them. It doesn't matter who else they hated. It's irrelevant.

You have studied enough to know how the Romans were. They were based on religious philosophy just like almost all other cultures. Pliny's letters demonstrate their hatred of the Christian sect, and how they persecuted them and forced them to worship the Roman gods instead of Christ, or they killed them.

You don't kill people because you love them.

Big Grin

Your argument appears circular.

They killed him because they hated him.
They must have hated him because they killed him.

The real answer lies in why they hated each other.

Religion.

And we all know how religion inspires people to hate one another.

"Let's lop off another head and throw it on the barby!"

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
You keep going back to this 'mythism' nonsense. I have already stated I believe that historical Jesus existed a few times now. However there is no 'concrete' evidence to suggest that this is the case is all I am getting at.

Anyway, if he existed or not is irrelevant, if we are simply speaking of a zealot rabbi or preacher who Rome strung up to begin with. Hence why I stated earlier off in this discussion that if we are talking about a man who inspired a legend, there is no point in discussing this further. As he was just as irrelevant as any of the other hundred's of thousands, if not millions of people who met that same fate under Rome throughout history.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like StorMFront's post
16-11-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 04:23 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 04:04 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Right, 'dumb' because you have no rational argument to make against it.

I also believe a historical Jesus existed, simply because its not an extraordinary claim to think a legend was inspired by a real man. The fact is though, there is no evidence to suggest he actually did exist. You and I are simply speculating to a non-evident person only. Just like I said before, like Achilles.

For a supposed historian that you claim to be. You throw up a lot of red flags to me. Such as stating that no one in history can be known to exist if we question the authenticity of that person source (in this case Tacitus). Well failing to understand that all other historical figures have other supporting 'contemporary' evidences and sources to collaborate to and not just hearsay.

I like the part where you stated 'I win' while plugging your ears and screaming la-la-la-la.

No, it's "dumb" because your fucking arguments are not arguments at all. Let me give you a very simple demonstration of how fucking stupid these mythicist arguments are, okay?

Watch and learn. Here is goodwithoutgod's "pasted" argument regarding Philo:

Quote: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.

Lesson two:

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.”

Okay so Philo didn't say anything. How the fuck does saying nothing prove anything? An argument from silence is somehow an argument? Because someone didn't say something, well by golly, it never happened?

How the fuck does that utter stupidity ever make it into a discussion?

Not only that, the big question is this:

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

Do you know that Philo lived in Egypt and NOT Judea?
Do you know he was a Hellenistic Jew who attempted to combine Jewish and Greek philosophies?
Do you know he was not accepted in Orthodox Jews/Judaism at ALL?

Do you really think they had mass communication in ancient times where news of a localized "historical" Jesus somewhere in Judea would have reached some obscure Hellenistic Jew in Egypt?

So ...

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

And that is why the mythicist's arguments are so fucking retarded.

Get bent.

No, the mythicists' arguments are not retarded - the argument is essentially that evidence that one might reasonably expect to be present isn't, and that the scant evidence that exists in unconvincing.

Neither side has a convincing argument in this.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 01:57 PM)kim Wrote:  I would need to see exactly which scholar has established that Paul met the Jesus he wrote about.


I also want to have a little talk with the idiot who wrote those new Star Trek movies. Dodgy

Paul never met him. Paul was ostracized by the 12 apostles because he was an untrustworthy belligerent asshole. His response to this ostracism was to self proclaim himself an apostle, "Not by men (not by the apostles), but by Jesus."

He then went on to create this fucking bullshit we call Christianity.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 04:23 PM)Free Wrote:  No, it's "dumb" because your fucking arguments are not arguments at all. Let me give you a very simple demonstration of how fucking stupid these mythicist arguments are, okay?

Watch and learn. Here is goodwithoutgod's "pasted" argument regarding Philo:


Okay so Philo didn't say anything. How the fuck does saying nothing prove anything? An argument from silence is somehow an argument? Because someone didn't say something, well by golly, it never happened?

How the fuck does that utter stupidity ever make it into a discussion?

Not only that, the big question is this:

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

Do you know that Philo lived in Egypt and NOT Judea?
Do you know he was a Hellenistic Jew who attempted to combine Jewish and Greek philosophies?
Do you know he was not accepted in Orthodox Jews/Judaism at ALL?

Do you really think they had mass communication in ancient times where news of a localized "historical" Jesus somewhere in Judea would have reached some obscure Hellenistic Jew in Egypt?

So ...

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

And that is why the mythicist's arguments are so fucking retarded.

Get bent.

No, the mythicists' arguments are not retarded - the argument is essentially that evidence that one might reasonably expect to be present isn't, and that the scant evidence that exists in unconvincing.

Neither side has a convincing argument in this.

Nope, the myther argument is retarded. Almost all of their arguments must first assume that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, rose from the dead, et al.

They do not argue against the historical position.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: