Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2014, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2014 11:26 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 02:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 12:57 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I am only "learning" about this now so I can't answer those points. However, I came across something which is historical which is that the Queen Helena who is the mother of Izats, the leader of the Jewish Revolt was converted by a Jewish preacher from Galilee named Eleazor, along with Izats. That would be in about the right time and corresponds to what Atwill hints at, that the real Jesus was Eleazor, but I only found this a few days ago so I haven't had time to look into it. I did find this discussion of the issue on a Jewish site (my view is that Jesus is a political conflation of three or more characters, Eleazor, Izats and Titus):

Here is a most unusual but fascinating story about a strange chapter in the history of our Jewish people which took place almost two thousand years ago.

It is not often that a queen decides to become a Jewess, but such was the case with Queen Helena of Adiabene, the capital of a rich country which extended over a part of the former Assyrian empire.

This remarkable event took place about half a century before the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed by the Romans.

Queen Helena lived happily with her husband, Monobaz, in Adiabene. Occasionally, Jewish merchants used to visit Adiabene on business. Through them Helena became acquainted with, and interested in, the Jewish religion. As time went on, she became so deeply attracted by the high moral standard of Judaism that she engaged a teacher for herself to learn all she could about it.

Meanwhile her husband died, and Izates, their younger son, was placed on the throne, this being the king’s dying wish. Izates was as eager as his mother to learn all about the Jewish religion, and so they employed as their teacher a Jewish merchant by the name of Ananias (Chananyah). Both mother and son were so impressed by all they learnt about Judaism that they decided to give up the pagan faith of their land and adopt the Jewish religion as their own.

It happened that a Jewish scholar named Rabbi Eleazar of Galilee called at the court of Adiabene. Eagerly, King Izates invited him to become his teacher, to which the rabbi agreed. Monobaz II, the king’s elder brother, also showed an interest and wanted to take part in the lessons, and the king readily agreed. (Clearly, there was no ill feeling on the part of Monobaz II that his younger brother had been made king on the death of their father.)

One day, when Rabbi Eleazar was teaching them the portion concerning the importance of circumcision, the divine commandment which was the sign of G‑d’s covenant with the Jewish people, the two brothers decided there and then that they would take this step in order to become real Jews. Although there might have been a great risk that this step would have caused their pagan people to rise in rebellion against the royal family, the two brothers (with the encouragement of their mother, Queen Helena) arranged to become circumcised, and the event passed off quite peacefully. Queen Helena and King Izates were very much loved by their people, and the fact that the royal house had embraced the Jewish religion did not affect the people’s loyalty to their king and queen.

After a very peaceful reign of twenty-four years, Izates died. His older brother, Monobaz, took over the throne of Adiabene.

A very close and friendly relationship developed between the Jewish people and the foreign state ruled by Helena and Monobaz. Not only were they personally very pious and observant followers of the Torah and its commands, but they influenced many of their own people to follow their example and embrace Judaism.

The royal house of Adiabene helped the Jewish state in many ways. Many a time they sent large sums of money to Jerusalem, either to provide for the needs of the Beit Hamikdash or to help the poor. Once, a very serious famine ravished the Jewish land, and soon there was no money left to buy food from other countries. Queen Helena and her son used a large portion of their own state treasury to buy grain in Alexandria and dried fruits in Cyprus, and have all this lifesaving food shipped to Jerusalem.

When Monobaz was criticized by some of his advisers for squandering his money on the poor, both in his own country and in the Jewish state, he replied:

“My ancestors amassed treasures in this world, while I gather treasures for the world to come. My ancestors placed their treasures in chambers, and had to guard them against thieves; my treasures are far from the reach of any greedy hand, and will be safe forever. My ancestors’ treasures did not produce any fruits, but mine continue to bring more and more fruit.”

Such was the piety and charitableness of Queen Helena and her sons.

In the Mishnah we are told of many gifts which Queen Helena and her son gave to the Beit Hamikdash, for which they are remembered for all time. For instance, she had a golden candelabra placed above the entrance to the Beit Hamikdash, which not only had its own light, but early in the morning it reflected the sun’s first rays. Thus, when the priests wanted to know whether it was already time to say the Shema in the morning, they had only to look at Queen Helena’s candelabra.

Another gift of Queen Helena was a tablet of gold, on which she had a certain portion of the Torah inscribed, which was of special interest to women. In addition, King Monobaz and his mother donated golden handles to be attached to all vessels used in the Beit Hamikdash on Yom Kippur.

Once, on a visit to Jerusalem, Queen Helena built a beautiful mausoleum where she and her sons were to be buried after their death. Its door had an ingenious mechanism that opened it once a year at a certain hour and closed itself again, to stay closed for another twelve months. Even now, parts of this beautiful tomb, called the Tombs of the Kings, are still left.

Before her death, Queen Helena traveled to Jerusalem to spend there the last years of her life in prayer and good deeds. According to tradition, she lived as a nezirah (nazirite) for fourteen years, to keep a vow she had made for her son and for herself.

Even after the death of Queen Helena and King Monobaz II, the royal house and the people of Adiabene maintained their friendship with the Jewish people for many years.


Drinking Beverage

Who is this story written by? You? Ellis?


lol

Exactly the point!

I was amazed when I read it but it is purely historical and from a Jewish website. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...Helena.htm
The problem I am seeing is that there is a complete rift between Jewish thinking and Christian thinking on this and it goes to the way we as securlarist atheists approach matters. We reject Christianity, rightly so, because the New Testament is complete nonsense. There's no guy who was born of a virgin and was resurrected after walking on water... gee what a surprise.

But, when we look around for a Jewish preacher we ignore Jewish writing and if you look in the right place you will find people who were Nazarites and were preaching something similar to Christianity, like Eleazar of Galilee. He wasn't crucified though so he isn't Jeebus but no one has ever said he didn't exist.

So, if you are going to create a religion to peddle to Pagans, do you tell them to follow Eleazar, or else, or do you write a book about a Horus type who is crucified but fortells the future, woooooo.... and can turn water into wine....woooooo..... and raises the dead....woooo.... and happens to correspond to someone people remembered as being a good king who was well liked because he fed the poor, opened schools for children in Jerusalem, was a high priest and had a lineage going back to Cleopatra and Julius Caesar? I would say "whatever sells".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2014 11:42 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus myth
I think the thinking of Ellis and Atwill is that Josephus was a friend of Izats and possibly a Nazarite himself so he stuck his buddy in the main role, embellished his birth and abilities to do magic and hey presto, a god figure.

Have you read the resurrection story as Atwill suggests, intertextually, and in the order according to time of day? If so you will see that it is, if it is written by one person, completely self contradicting and impossible, so whoever wrote it, if it was a single person or collaborative group, made it contradictory, presumably so that it would not be believed by people who were intelligent enough to see exactly how contradictory it is in every aspect and in central ways, such as Jesus' command to the apostles to travel the world and proselytize...oops, no, sorry, I meant to say stay in Jerusalem.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 11:33 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think the thinking of Ellis and Atwill is...

[Image: tumblr_mgztqjkqsm1qh2o7zo1_r1_500.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Exactly my point!

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Here is something about an Eleazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Azariah I am not sure it is the same guy but he seems to have ended up in Galilee

I have never heard of him before yesterday when I did a google of Eleazar's. You know, I had never considered googling an Eleazar until yesterday. Amazing eh?

So, he has ideas which are vaguely reminiscent of what I learnt at Sunday school.Consider

I am sure you are all wondering why I put the link to Celtic bards in. I was talking to a guy a few years ago and he said I should look up "Ur of the Chaldees". I had no idea what he was talking about and forgot all about it, except he had written it down and I found the piece of paper. What he was getting at was that Abraham was a Chaldean, or Keltoi...read Celt. And Ur was a city in Someria out of which Abraham was kicked. I found this very interesting, to some, site about the Standard of Ur https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/h...2400-b-c-e

If you look at it closely you see the types of crafts these people had, and they had chariots and weapons like Europeans, a class system. What we forget is that Celtic history goes back to this place so crazy as it seems when we think of Knights of Old, they existed back then, wore helmets, carried swords. The Celts or Gauls came to speak a Germanic language from which much of English derives and English also has core words going back to Sumerian. These are the ancestors of the feudal Europeans. Their myths, like Sargon and Gilgamesh predate those of Moses and Noah so it is right, I think, to say that the biblical stories are part of the same Celtic tradition of pseudonymous myth making which Professor Schofield writes about.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 01:04 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Here is something about an Eleazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Azariah I am not sure it is the same guy but he seems to have ended up in Galilee

I have never heard of him before yesterday when I did a google of Eleazar's. You know, I had never considered googling an Eleazar until yesterday. Amazing eh?

So, he has ideas which are vaguely reminiscent of what I learnt at Sunday school.Consider

I am sure you are all wondering why I put the link to Celtic bards in. I was talking to a guy a few years ago and he said I should look up "Ur of the Chaldees". I had no idea what he was talking about and forgot all about it, except he had written it down and I found the piece of paper. What he was getting at was that Abraham was a Chaldean, or Keltoi...read Celt.

No, do not read 'Celt'. That is a Ellis error of the first order. The Celts originated in central Europe.

Quote:If you look at it closely you see the types of crafts these people had, and they had chariots and weapons like Europeans, a class system. What we forget is that Celtic history goes back to this place

No, it doesn't - see above. You are piling inference upon coincidence; yet another Ellis error.

Quote:so crazy as it seems when we think of Knights of Old, they existed back then, wore helmets, carried swords.

So did the Greeks, so did the Asians; yet another Ellis error.

Quote:The Celts or Gauls came to speak a Germanic language from which much of English derives and English also has core words going back to Sumerian.

Citation required.

Quote: These are the ancestors of the feudal Europeans. Their myths, like Sargon and Gilgamesh predate those of Moses and Noah so it is right, I think, to say that the biblical stories are part of the same Celtic tradition of pseudonymous myth making which Professor Schofield writes about.

No - another Ellis error. The Bible myths predate the entrance into Europe of Christianity. You ignore actual facts at your peril.

I can see why you like Ellis.

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
01-04-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 11:33 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think the thinking of Ellis and Atwill is that Josephus was a friend of Izats and possibly a Nazarite himself so he stuck his buddy in the main role, embellished his birth and abilities to do magic and hey presto, a god figure.

Have you read the resurrection story as Atwill suggests, intertextually, and in the order according to time of day? If so you will see that it is, if it is written by one person, completely self contradicting and impossible, so whoever wrote it, if it was a single person or collaborative group, made it contradictory, presumably so that it would not be believed by people who were intelligent enough to see exactly how contradictory it is in every aspect and in central ways, such as Jesus' command to the apostles to travel the world and proselytize...oops, no, sorry, I meant to say stay in Jerusalem.

Drinking Beverage

So Ellis thinks Jeebus is based on king Izates?

Is there a time frame for king Izates?

Do you have an explanation for the points I made in post 635?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 02:01 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  When apologists are confronted with the "Jesus didn't exist" argument they like to say, what proof do you have that Socrates existed? That's when I hit them with Hitchens' response that, it doesn't matter if a philosopher didn't exist because his ideas still hold true, and billions of "souls" won't burn for eternity for denying Socrates' existence. And when apologists are confronted with the "MMLJ didn't write the Gospels" argument, they like to ask, how do you know Homer wrote his works? My answer is almost identical as the Socrates example.

Socrates is featured in the literature of his contempories as a member of their society enough to inform me at least he existed. Xenophon, Plato ,Aristophanes...we even have his bust.

There is no equivalent with Jesus. We have no contemporary accounts at all. Certainly no bust.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 01:04 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Here is something about an Eleazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Azariah I am not sure it is the same guy but he seems to have ended up in Galilee

I have never heard of him before yesterday when I did a google of Eleazar's. You know, I had never considered googling an Eleazar until yesterday. Amazing eh?

So, he has ideas which are vaguely reminiscent of what I learnt at Sunday school.Consider

I am sure you are all wondering why I put the link to Celtic bards in. I was talking to a guy a few years ago and he said I should look up "Ur of the Chaldees". I had no idea what he was talking about and forgot all about it, except he had written it down and I found the piece of paper. What he was getting at was that Abraham was a Chaldean, or Keltoi...read Celt.

No, do not read 'Celt'. That is a Ellis error of the first order. The Celts originated in central Europe.

Quote:If you look at it closely you see the types of crafts these people had, and they had chariots and weapons like Europeans, a class system. What we forget is that Celtic history goes back to this place

No, it doesn't - see above. You are piling inference upon coincidence; yet another Ellis error.

Quote:so crazy as it seems when we think of Knights of Old, they existed back then, wore helmets, carried swords.

So did the Greeks, so did the Asians; yet another Ellis error.

Quote:The Celts or Gauls came to speak a Germanic language from which much of English derives and English also has core words going back to Sumerian.

Citation required.

Quote: These are the ancestors of the feudal Europeans. Their myths, like Sargon and Gilgamesh predate those of Moses and Noah so it is right, I think, to say that the biblical stories are part of the same Celtic tradition of pseudonymous myth making which Professor Schofield writes about.

No - another Ellis error. The Bible myths predate the entrance into Europe of Christianity. You ignore actual facts at your peril.

I can see why you like Ellis.


I haven't read anything about the Celts in any of what Ellis has posted, nor have I read any of his books.

The "Keltoi" originate from Sumeria and Ur. There is a Danube theory of their origin but the "Chaldeans" originated in the area of Iraq, where many of them still live. Celt simply means people who lived around a "shrine", ie., a "cell". The idea of a central European origin of the Celts ignores the fact that Europe was covered by ice and permafrost right the way down to present day Serbia leaving very little of Europe inhabitable, meaning that present day Europeans had to have lived in the Near East and further south. The inhabitants of Ankara in biblical times are recorded as speaking a language similar to that spoken in Trier, which is in present day Germany and Trier is said to have been founded by a Syrian prince.

As for the tie between English and Sumerian: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewt...43&t=37380 suggests that Turkish, which is agglutinative is an old Sumerian language

and

http://www.nature.com/news/a-turkish-ori...es-1.11270
suggests a "Turkish" origin for European languages.

I don't understand you reference to the entrance of Christianity into Europe. What I wrote has nothing to do with Ellis. It comes from a book by Professor Schofield, a Harvard English professor and he traces this literary tradition back even to Homer, who, as I suspect you might know, is supposed to have been blind making it impossible for him to have written anything at all, one might surmise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2014, 02:48 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2014 05:47 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
I don't normally get involved in these Jesus discussions much anymore because they have been done to death. However, I'm bored and will tackle the OPs post.

Quote:No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

Typical of ancient historical people. There are literally thousands of people mentioned in ancient historical accounts who also do not meet the criteria you demand, so should we also say that none of them existed either?

Unless you are willing to eliminate thousands of people mentioned in the writings of numerous writers, you cannot possibly expect your criteria to actually have any merit, can you? If you are going to use this criteria to eliminate 1 person from having a historical record, you will need to do it to them all, otherwise your argument is fallacious.


Quote:All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

Once again, so do the claims of other historical persons derive from the writings of other people. So ... eliminate everybody else also? More fallacious reasoning?


Quote:There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

It is also a well-known historical fact that the Romans executed scores of other people via crucifixion and we don't see much of anything as to those countless records either. So where are those records? You seem to imply that the Romans kept records of these executions, and then try to claim non-existence of a historical person named Jesus because there is no contemporary Roman record of his specific execution.

Why would you expect a contemporary Roman record of the execution of Jesus when there are virtually no contemporary Roman records of the crucifixion of anybody at all? More fallacious reasoning?


Quote:Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.

The historians are not devastated at all, for in fact the vast majority of historians agree that a man named Jesus, who was called Christ, actually existed. And as far as "not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus" is concerned, Paul was a contemporary, and every letter attributed to him mentions Jesus, and even the letters in dispute about his authorship only reflect that at the very least we have other 1st century writers contemporary to Jesus mentioning Jesus.

You see, in order for your claim to be true, you need to eliminate Paul and any other writer of the letters in the bible for it to be true. But ... you cannot do that, can you? Forgetting something?

Your claim is false.


Quote: All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Generally in antiquity whenever anybody writes an account of someone else it normally is writen after the subject's time. Also, in your quote above, you list at least 5 different sources all referring to this same man, yet you somehow can claim that these 5 different sources who are talking about this same person somehow miraculously invented the same man?

Your position utterly fails the most basic test of logic, and is simply unreasonable.


Quote:Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Again, almost ALL ancient historical records are written via hearsay. It was how ancient history worked. From Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, and scores of other ancient historians, we constantly see quotes in their works of people who were not contemporary, which means that it was all hearsay either oral or via the written works of people who came before those historians.

Therefore, using your criteria, why not just completely wipe out ALL of ancient history and say, "Meh ... it never happened?"

Can't you even BEGIN to understand the fallacy in your reasoning?

Quote:Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

That is correct, and so I guess we should wipe out ALL of ancient history because virtually ALL of it is hearsay.

Quote:Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Who the fuck are you trying to kid, here? You say "courts of law" as if that somehow means that ALL courts do not allow hearsay, when in fact it is only CRIMINAL courts that deny hearsay, and even in some cases they allow it.

Ancient history is not subjected to whatever court of law you so wrongfully adhere to. Not only is your argument here false, but it is out-and-out fucking stupid.

Quote:Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Because ancient history is written based primarily upon hearsay, again do you somehow think we need to eliminate it all from the historical record using your reasoning? The best ancient history can do- as well as we can do in modern times- is to approximate the truth as closely as possible using all available means which include, but are not limited to, the historical method, reasoning, logic, and the best argument to explain the evidence. Can it still be wrong? Absolutely it can be wrong, but even if it is wrong (and we don't know it is) it is still the best god damn argument to explain the evidence and that is how history is determined.



Quote:Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

So when Paul mentions Peter, James, and other people who knew Jesus ... he is not using actual eyewitnesses? Historians today refer to Paul mentioning of those people who knew Jesus directly, with Paul actually lodging with "James, the Lord's brother." This meets your criteria of "provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts" easily, and if it's good enough for modern writers, then it's good enough for ancient writers also.

Did you even put a shred of thought behind this crazy argument?

Quote:What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

Again, it has been demonstrated ad nausium that historical accounts of people in antiquity were written by people who lived long after the death of the subject. Cornelius Tacitus wrote about the lives of the 12 Caesars from other written sources and whatever records he could find, but he never knew at least 9 of them. He never wrote about most of the Caesars and other historical people because he was a contemporary, because it would be impossible.

Your expectations of how history should be written are absurd, and miserably fail as reasonable.

Quote:If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

It is far more reasonable to understand the gospel record as nothing more than the embellishment of the life of a historical person than it is to discard all of it as myth considering all other non gospel records of this Jesus fellow that demonstrate commonalities in the historical record of his person. The commonalities include such things as:

1. His name was Jesus.
2. He was regarded as a Christ.
3. He was executed by Pontius Pilate.
4. The Christian sect originated from the existence of this Jesus.

To dispute this you will need to find someone else who meets the exact same criteria, with the same name. Many have tried, NONE have succeeded.

Also, since you believe the gospel records to be a complete fabrication of a non-existent person, then perhaps you would like to explain to me your reasoning on how you can use a "complete fabrication" as some kind of real evidence to further your point? How the fuck does anyone use what they consider to be a lie as evidence to support their own supposed truth? Can't you even remotely grasp the fallacy of your argument, for fuck sakes?

Quote:Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

This argument MIGHT work IF the ability to produce mass communication existed in 1st century Israel, but since Philo Judaeus lived no where near Jerusalem during the purported time of Jesus- he actually lived in Egypt- and he was not a historian or writer who wrote accounts of the lives of other people. He was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who's works detailed his philosophical views, and not the history of persons who lived in far-away lands.

This argument of yours is fucked due to no logic, no reasoning, and very bad research being employed.

Quote:If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Like I said, the gospels embellished the life of a historical person, and they did so for the sake of furthering the interests of the religion that sprang up from his historical existence. He may very well have been well known in the area of Jerusalem, but expecting his fame to spread hundreds and thousands of miles is not only unreasonable during that age, but fails the method used to determine history.

Again, using your methods, we would need to eliminate history completely and claim it all to be false.

Quote:Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

These constant fallacious arguments of silence of yours might actually work if they were somehow supported by actual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive train of thought. But since you employ NONE of those supporting factors, your argument remains wholly fallacious and simply fails.

You know, I couldn't give a fuck if this Jesus guy existed or not because being an atheist it doesn't actually matter to me. But when I see fucking stupid, poorly thought-out arguments such as you and many others keep posting, then in the interests of reason, intelligence, and respect for history I am going to demonstrate exactly why your arguments are retarded, and expose them for the utter stupidity they actually demonstrate.

So again, using your whacked out methods, let's eliminate ALL of history because the way you approach the Jesus issue can just as easily be applied to the history of tens of thousands of other people from antiquity.


Yeah ... let's get right on that, shall we?

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: