TA List Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, you are desperately grasping at straws.

"Phlegon, born about A.D. 80, was a secular historian who lived in the second century.[1] There are two books credited to his name: Chronicles and the Olympiads. Little is known about Phlegon, but he made reference to Christ. "

Whatever he said is hearsay - he did not witness any events during the life of Jesus.

So if he reported on what was common knowledge of the time, even if it occurred shortly before he was born, that makes it less relevant? I notice you don't address Thallus, also. Does that mean you discredit any historians who mention things they haven't directly observed? And do you discount Caesar's Gallic Wars because all the events weren't directly observed by the writer? Applying that kind of standard to historical sources is silly and would disqualify much of history's documentation.
At the time it was also common knowledge that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it...Your point?

Common knowledge is not automatically true.


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like CiderThinker's post
11-07-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Applying that kind of standard to historical sources is silly and would disqualify much of history's documentation.

You are qualified to say this how?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Applying that kind of standard to historical sources is silly and would disqualify much of history's documentation.

Qualifications, please. I'd like to know how you think accepted historical accounts are verified and why your opinion matters.

It was common knowledge that the Earth... oh damn, someone beat me to it.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
11-07-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
The fact that you said that jesus did not live on a manger but the contradiction was talking about where he was born. That already makes it easy to dismiss you.

also definitions go

a box or trough in a stable or barn from which horses or cattle eat.
2.
Nautical .
a.
a space at the bow of a ship, having a partition for confining water entering at the hawseholes until it can be drained.
b.
a sunken bottom in a chain locker, covered by a grating and used to collect water from the anchor chain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manger


a building in which people live; residence for human beings.
2.
a household.
3.
( often initial capital letter ) a family, including ancestors and descendants: the great houses of France; the House of Hapsburg.
4.
a building for any purpose: a house of worship.
5.
a theater, concert hall, or auditorium: a vaudeville house.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/house

so you can't do both because they are different things. If i said one person said I was born in a house and the other said a manger would that be a contradiction.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
Maybe Zombie Jesus ate his brain. That happens a lot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 09:04 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:14 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 03:58 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Um no. Look it up again. 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he began to reign in Jerusalem at age 8, not Judah. He can't begin reigning in the same place both at age 8 and at age 18.

Seriously, why should I even read the rest? You come to an atheist site all high and mighty to debunk this list and you haven't even checked your facts. Rolleyes

Actually both passages just say he started reigning at ages 8 and 18, and then say he reigned 3 months in Jerusalem. Both are correct, he started reigning in Judah at 8 and in Jerusalem at 18. And he's typically referred to as king of Judah showing this was his primary reign. (Jer. 22:24, 24:1)

"Jehoiachin’s co-regency of ten years corresponds perfectly with his father Jehoiakim’s reign of eleven years (2 Chronicles 36:5). Moreover, as soon as the Babylonian invasion looms into the picture, Chronicles begins to use the phrase, 'king over Judah and Jerusalem' (2 Chronicles 36:4, 10)."

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/eight-years...nicles-369

Tut, tut, Jay-Z, you seem to have misunderstood the section. Here it is in it's entirety:

2 Chronicles 36:9-10

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

And here's 2 Kings 24:8-17:

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.

And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

Awaiting your rebuttal.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
11-07-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:32 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  ... And both Matthew and the apostle Paul met Jesus. Not to mention John, who wrote one of the Gospels, several letters, and Revelation. The epistle of Jude is written by Jesus' brother. There's the books of James and Peter also.

So the Church would like you to believe, anyway. Ehrman (who has spent many years studying the textual history of the NT) claims that none of the original gospel manuscripts had author attributions -- those were added later. So we don't really know who wrote the "Gospel according to Matthew" or "the Gospel according to John" (those titles were not there in the original manuscripts), or who Matthew and John might have been. And Paul had some sort of mystical experience (which may have been an epileptic fit) in which he claimed to have had some sort of communication from Jesus/God. There is no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else that Paul ever met Jesus the man. Also, many of the epistles of "Paul" were actually written by others who used Paul's name to lend authority to their writings. The names attached to NT books in general are in no way conclusive as to who actually wrote the books.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:14 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  You can have a manger in a house. They are not mutually exclusive. One is a building, the other is a feeding trough for animals. You don't seem to understand what a manger is.
What was it that you said in your original post regarding this contradiction... oh yeah, it was "Presuming more than that is reaching." Well, you're presuming an awful lot here. In Luke 2:7, Jesus was placed in a manger because there was no room at the inn. An inn was a place that travelers stayed or stopped so the implication is that Mary and Joseph were traveling. Why would they put Jesus in a manger in a house? What house? If it was their own house, they wouldn't have been looking for an inn. They were traveling. A manger in a house... talk about reaching.

(11-07-2014 07:14 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Actually both passages just say he started reigning at ages 8 and 18, and then say he reigned 3 months in Jerusalem. Both are correct, he started reigning in Judah at 8 and in Jerusalem at 18. And he's typically referred to as king of Judah showing this was his primary reign. (Jer. 22:24, 24:1)
I've gone back and looked into this further here. It turns out that 2 Chronicles 36:9 says age 8 in some translations and it says 18 in others. So I will grant you that whether a contradiction exists depends on what translation you read. (Oh look, intellectual honesty. What a concept!)

That said, you aren't being honest here. Whether age 8 or age 18, they all clearly say he reigned in Jerusalem, not Judah. You claim it only says he started reigning, implying that it could have been Judah and not Jerusalem. But you conveniently overlook basic English. It (2 Chronicles 36:9) says "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD." Notice that's all one sentence. Clearly, the meaning is he began to reign in Jerusalem. Why would any writer talk about starting to reign in Judah and then mention reigning in Jerusalem for three months in the same sentence, especially without making that distinction perfectly clear? Clearly you were trying to make a shoe fit where it doesn't.

Regarding this:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/eight-years...nicles-369
Be careful about your sources. I wouldn't trust any source that doesn't openly disclose who they are. How else do you discern the credibility level of their information?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:40 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Contradiction One Debunked
In the 3rd Harry Potter book, Harry and friends are carted to Hogwarts by a carriage pulled by an invisible horse, which Harry can't see. In the 5th book, Harry is able to see the horse. People claim this is a contradiction, but it's obvious that it's perfectly logical. For starters, the horses are not naturally invisible; otherwise, nobody could see them. It is a spell used to protect them from the attention of the death eaters. If a death eater were to look at a horse, it would become agitated, or worse. As Harry ages, his magical awareness is heightened and simple illusions such as invisibility are no longer powerful enough to fool him, thus the horses can be seen. Since the death eaters are themselves created by magic, they cannot 'evolve' to see past simple illusions.

If anyone has any other questions about the Harry Potter texts, please post them here. I will be happy to correct your errors regarding this flawless collection of inspired writings.

[Image: funny-harry-potter-13.jpg]

What are you, some kind of crazy heretic? Consider

The 'horses' are thestrals and they are only visible to one who has witnessed death.

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
11-07-2014, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 10:28 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:32 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 04:25 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  By the way oh confused and misinformed one....that is yet another fable. Allow me to school you.

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 for believers, 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, and there were two reknowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened. The Egyptians, chinese and other rather advanced large civilizations all with historians and literate people and yet none mention the whole earth going dark mid afternoon for 3 hours...odd don't you think...you can do better than that can't you....or can you?

Here I will give you a crumb of knowledge, no one who wrote of jesus, knew him...uhoh....that makes it all heresay. Come, open your mind, it is such a terrible thing to waste on religion...

Nope, you are incorrect. As pointed out by Josh McDowell on pg. 84 of 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict', both Thallus and Phlegon mention an unusual darkness during the time of Jesus, as preserved in the writings of Julius Africanus. And both Matthew and the apostle Paul met Jesus. Not to mention John, who wrote one of the Gospels, several letters, and Revelation. The epistle of Jude is written by Jesus' brother. There's the books of James and Peter also.

Well allow me to help you on that bit of misinformation.

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

1) 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). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. No, his "vision" of jesus in the talking light on the road to damascus does not count for meeting jesus. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) 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.

4) 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 the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) 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, 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.

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 it seems that you, like most apologist Christians you unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

getting the picture yet? That education on your own religion is free of charge, feel free to validate them, education is the key my misinformed believer... Smartass

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

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: