TA List Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:29 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  The ThinkingAtheist list has now been completely debunked here.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist

Here are some examples of really bad claims on the list that should've never been included:

Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?

A manger isn't a living area. Really? And if it was, I doubt it would fit very many people. Humor aside, Luke 2 never says where they lived, only that it had a manger and was not an inn. Presuming more than that is reaching.

How Old Was Jehoiachin When He Began to Reign in Jerusalem? And for How Long?

Both passages are correct. Jehoiachin began to reign in Judah at age 8 (2 Chronicles 36:9) and in Jerusalem at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8).

Who Did the Midianites Sell Joesph To?

As often happens, the critic's faulty reading comprehension comes into play here. The passage never says "The Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites." Reading the passage in context clearly shows it was Joseph's own brothers who sold Joseph to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. Ishmeelites was just a synonym for the Midianites. Joseph's own brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. In fact, the passage itself clearly shows this if read in context, but TheThinkingAtheist.com failed to quote the key verse 27 that would've made this obvious. As v. 27 clearly shows, it was Joseph's brothers who sold him to the Ishmeelites, because the Ishmeelites and Midianites are one and the same. For example, I am both an American and an Illinoisan, they are two different names for what I am, but one defines me by continent, and one by state. In the same way, one can be a member of two groups. The context in this passage was very obvious just from a single verse earlier, that this got called a contradiction is simply ridiculous. Therefore, Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. A reading of the chapter in context clearly shows these were two separate events.

Where Did the Anointing of Jesus Take Place?

The Matthew and John passages relate the same incident involving Mary, as does Mark 14:3, but the Luke 7 passage is obviously not even the same incident. It doesn't even occur close to the same time! The incident with Mary occurs near the end of the Gospels right before the Passover/Crucifixion, whereas the Luke 7 incident is much earlier in Jesus' ministry. Whoever claimed this as a contradiction has a serious issue with telling time, and that's putting it nicely.

These are obviously two different cases. And as for the critic claiming a contradiction because "It isn’t an unnamed woman sinner who anoints Jesus, but Mary who does the honors"? This would be like someone referring to you as "that person over there" and another referring to you by name, it's obviously not a contradiction to just refer to someone with a descriptor instead of a name. If one writer wants to refer to her as a woman and another by name, they certainly are not contradicting.

What Was the Population of Israel? And How Many Fighting Men Did They Have?

The "ThinkingAtheist" omits the crucial verse, 1 Chronicles 21:6, which explains the discrepancy. Unlike in 1 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21 states "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them." In other words, 1 Chronicles 21 is omitting 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. 1.1 million is 85% of 1.3 million, and 5/6 is 83%, so it appears that for whatever reason two fewer tribes are being counted in 1 Samuel 24. Why that might be we can only hypothesize, perhaps a separate count of Levi and Benjamin was performed once it was discovered Joab had disobeyed, and the full amount given in 1 Samuel 24. At any rate, the two accounts are perfectly congruent in light of the fact that two fewer tribes were being counted in the second passage.

Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Before Pilate?

What we have here is a critic using a word they don't understand, namely charges. Charges are the accusations the priests and elders made against Jesus, not Pilate's curious questioning of Jesus. If the critic had any reading comprehension they would have noticed this. Jesus refused to answer the accusations the prosecution made, but did carry on a conversation with the judge about who He was, in other words. This really should have been quite obvious since John 18 also mentions Jesus responding to Pilate's questions. It should have been very obvious that Pilate's questions were not considered charges like the accusations of the priests and elders. Either the critic didn't even bother reading the passage at all carefully to see this, making a careless accusation, or deliberately was dishonest in trying to make the passage appear to say something it didn't.

What Were the Centurion’s Words at the Cross?

The statements are not remotely incompatible, there is no reason the centurion could not have said them both. Mark 15:39 additionally records the first statement. The critic simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction." A contradiction means there are two incompatible statements which are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true, not a case like this where additional detail is given.

Shepherds or Wisemen?

Obviously there can be both and the passages don't contradict in any way. If all four Gospels provided the exact same detail/wording, what would be the point in having four different accounts? They'd obviously have colluded. Providing different detail is not in any way a contradiction. Claiming this a 'contradiction' is just outright ridiculous, to put it politely.

Who Did the Angel Speak to Regarding the Birth of Jesus?

Obviously an angel spoke to both of them. As pointed out in the note for Matthew 1:16 the genealogy provided in Matthew is for Joseph while the genealogy in Luke is for Mary. The detail given in the early chapters of Matthew appears to be from Joseph's perspective whereas the detail given in the chapters of Luke from Mary's perspective. Thus, Joseph in the book of Matthew relates his experience with an angel, while Mary in the book of Luke relates her experience. Whether it was the same angel or different angels is uncertain.

Did Mary Journey to Bethlehem?

First of all, where does it say they traveled via donkey? Neither Matthew or Luke appear to mention this, and Mark and John don't mention Jesus' childhood. Secondly, Joseph in the book of Matthew gave different detail about Jesus' childhood than Mary did. That they chose to relate different aspects of what occurred is not unusual and certainly not contradictory. The event does not need to be mentioned in both books for the Bible to be true, after all. Thirdly, both Mary and Joseph were of David's lineage and both needed to go. Joseph's genealogy in Matthew and Mary's genealogy in Luke show they were both of the lineage of David. For more on how Mary's genealogy was presented in Joseph's name per Jewish custom, see Luke 3.

How Many Blind Men Did Jesus Heal on the Road from Jericho?

Mark 10:46 never says there was "only" one blind man, it just happens to mention one. It's not uncommon for witnesses in court to only mention people at a scene they consider relevant. No court would take seriously a claim that the testimony of witnesses contradicts because they mention different unconflicting details of what occurred; it's just taken for granted their accounts need to be accepted as different perspectives of what occurred until they disqualify themselves as dishonest, or the evidence does.

Mark perhaps interviewed Bartimaeus or someone in his family who mentioned him specifically, while Matthew mentioned both people. This isn't in any way a contradiction, just mentioning varying levels of detail about what happened. The Gospels are different accounts from different people. You expect different levels of detail in different accounts so long as there's no clear conflict, which there isn't here. Had the Mark passage used the word "only" then there would be a contradiction, but nowhere is the word found in the passage. The critic is putting words in God's mouth, essentially.

Is it Good or Bad to be Wealthy?

Ultimately the critic makes a very simple mistake in failing to distinguish between this life and the next. Psalms 112 in context is speaking of future rewards, eternal rewards, as evidenced by the phrase "righteousness endureth for ever" (which the 'ThinkingAtheist' dishonestly did not quote). Another verse in the chapter, Psalms 112:6, shows that this is referring to eternal riches, not riches in this life. It is ultimately not riches themselves that are evil, but the love of them, trusting in them, rather than in God and the eternal riches which He gives to the righteous.

Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus’ Tomb?

That this is not a contradiction should of course be patently obvious. None of the verses remotely appear to contradict one another. Matthew 28 mentions two of the three present, Mary Magdalene and another Mary. Mark 16 mentions all three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, and Salome. John 20 mentions only Mary Magdalene. Luke 24 mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, Joanna (who may be the same as Salome and/or the mother of Zebedee's children in Matthew 27:56), and other women.

If one author was aware of one person present, another of two people, and another that three were there, it is in no way a contradiction. One writer may see fit to mention only one, another two, and yet another writer to mention all persons present. In no way does it contradict, it simply means less detail was provided about those present by different writers. Had the Matthew or John passages said "ONLY X persons were at the sepulchre" than that would be a contradiction, but to put words in the mouth of the writers when that is not what they said is to falsely accuse the Bible of a contradiction that does not in fact exist.

*gets done showing his wife the link you posted, laughing myself sick, tears can't stop flowing*

oh my, lets look at a few of these treasures;

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist

in response to the "talking snake, enough said" comment on the thinking atheist site, here is their response...I kid you not....

Not snake, dinosaur. Satan is typically portrayed throughout the Bible as a dragon or dinosaur, as he/she apparently is here. (Revelation 12:9) The Hebrew word used here is the word nachash which the KJV translates serpent.[1] It appears probable that, like tanniyn[2], it is a Hebrew word referring specifically to dinosaurs, or at the least to reptiles including dinosaurs.
Biblically, at least some dinosaurs were capable of breathing fire and, at least in the case of Satan/Lucifer, could speak as well. We still know very little from the fossil record or archaeology whether the Bible is correct in the fire-breathing aspect of dinosaurs, and know very little of what their vocal chords or speech capabilities were. Therefore it would be premature to write the Bible off as incorrect in its description of dinosaurs being capable of speech.


Laugh out load Laugh out load Blink Laughat Laugh out load

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Eight Bronze-Age humans over 500-years-old built a watercraft the size of a football stadium with only felled trees and pitch?

and their response:

Why not? Since humans at the time lived over 900 years with regularity (Genesis 5) they were probably stronger and sturdier than humans today, and had much more time to work on the Ark. After all, we are not told how long Noah spent building the Ark, it could have been a century or three.
Furthermore, don't forget that if the Bible is right about the timeline and dinosaurs did coexist with early humans, then Noah might have harnessed their might for use in constructing the Ark. Maybe that could explain why early monuments like Stonehenge and the Easter Island statues could be constructed, perhaps there were rare cases where dinosaurs were used as part of the labor. Noah had the aid of animals it would appear, which were doubtless directed by God to enter the Ark, and thus those same animals could have helped construct the Ark.


Rolleyes

no wait, theres more....

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Answers In Genesis posits that Noah gathered "kinds" of animals and not all "species," an estimated 16,000 pairs, which raises a few animal-related questions:
How, exactly, did eight extreme senior citizens load, manage and care for 32,000 animals?
What about specialized diets (bamboo for the giant panda, meat for the carnivores, fresh vegetation for the herbivores)?
Who cleaned each stall and shoveled the tons of daily excrement through the huge ark’s single window?
How did they separate the predator and prey animals? Did the lion lay with the lamb?
How do you explain the acquisition and loading of animals not indigenous to the Middle East (many separated by oceans), like the polar bear, the sloth, the crocodile, the fruit bat, the anaconda, etc? And how did the penguins and other cold-climate creatures survive in the blistering desert heat?
Wouldn’t freshwater rains from the sky have made the saltwater deadly to ocean marine life? And wouldn’t saltwater have proven equally toxic to all freshwater fish? If water boiled up from beneath the earth’s crust, wouldn’t water temperature changes in the delicate ecosystem have also had a deadly effect?
Dinosaurs on the ark. Did they exit the boat and THEN get hit by a comet?

their response *giggles*

1 - Answers In Genesis actually says 16,000 would be the maximum, and that as few as 2,000 would be required.[3] If each core species were considered a kind, one dog species, one cat species, one bird species, and all of these simply microevolved to become the varieties we see today, there would indeed need to be very few pairs overall.
2 - Given the average human lifespan at the time is recorded as being around 900 years (Genesis 5) you would expect them to be somewhat more physically adept than modern humans, and more suited for the physical task of caring for many animals. Even apart from that however, the animals were directed by God to go into the Ark. To take the Bible account at face value, one must assume the animals themselves were cooperating in the voyage.
3 - The Bible does suggest there were such specialized diets. Genesis 6:21 specifically states all types of food were to be brought to feed the animals, "take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." The Bible also says extra "clean" animals were taken on board, 7 of each, as opposed to the regular 2 of each, as a food supply. (Genesis 7:2-3). Clean animals are part of what Judaism considers kosher dietary law, as seen in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
4 - How the excrement problem was handled we can only hypothesize but since there were three stories to the Ark (Genesis 6:16) perhaps the Ark was just designed so excrement would fall to a lower level? Whatever the case, the animals themselves may have assisted in moving the excrement (point 2) and it is not necessary to assume the humans handled it alone.
5 - The Bible says the Ark was composed of rooms (Genesis 6:14) so there is no reason to assume predatory animals were housed with their prey, although again, extra animals were brought on board to serve as food, presumably for other animals. (Genesis 7:2-3)
6 - The Earth originally had just one landmass, a supercontinent called Pangaea, before the Flood. The catastrophe which broke up Pangaea would of course most logically be, for a Bible-believer, the Flood. Animals were originally on a single continent. Furthermore, ancient Earth was originally much warmer than it is today. Why this was is still debated, but those original kinds were all of similar climate before the Flood altered the antedeluvian environment.
7 - Much of ancient marine life was extinguished simultaneously as recorded in the fossil record. Scientists have finally acknowledged an ancient catastrophe did occur but prefer to believe there were many such catastrophes, and have given them names such as the Permian-Triassic extinction event (estimated to have killed 90% of all marine life),[4] Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, and Triassic-Jurassic extinction event. The fossil record contains considerable evidence of mass marine extinction in the past.[5]
8 - Since so many other animals simply are smaller versions of their ancient selves, why assume the dinosaurs ever went extinct at all? They may have simply become much smaller; today's reptiles. This process may have actually begun in the Garden of Genesis went God punished the 'serpent' by forcing it to go on its belly in the dust, which is arguably the main difference between today's reptiles and the dinosaurs of old. Dinosaurs were able to tower above ancient life because of differences in their hip structure.[6]


this BS is on the level of Ken Ham delusional....are you serious? You must be trolling. Come on, tell uncle GWG the truth...you are trolling aren't you? you can't truly believe that BS, did you even read it? Are you special? Did you get off the short bus this morning? Enter a debate with me and I will dismantle you like the lunatic you appear to be.

Drinking Beverage

"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
11-07-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
Goodwithoutgod,
Forget it. I doubt the OP will respond to you or to your mano-a-mano challenge. His name reminds me of a certain rapper and so for the rest of this thread I propose we compose rap songs as sung by God.

I'll start (with apologies to HH Pope Eminem II):

I'm beginnin' to feel like a rap God, rap God
All my people from the front to the back nod, back nod
Now who thinks their arms are long enough to slap box, slap box
They said I rap like a deity, so call me rap-God

My pen'll go off when I half-cock it
Got a fat profit from that God racket
Made a livin' and a killin' off it
So shut your mouth haters
Shut your mouth unbelievers
Someday you gone be offed, get it?

What do you think? Should I quit my day-job?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
11-07-2014, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 11:23 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 11:02 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Goodwithoutgod,
Forget it. I doubt the OP will respond to you or to your mano-a-mano challenge. His name reminds me of a certain rapper and so for the rest of this thread I propose we compose rap songs as sung by God.

I'll start (with apologies to HH Pope Eminem II):

I'm beginnin' to feel like a rap God, rap God
All my people from the front to the back nod, back nod
Now who thinks their arms are long enough to slap box, slap box
They said I rap like a deity, so call me rap-God

My pen'll go off when I half-cock it
Got a fat profit from that God racket
Made a livin' and a killin' off it
So shut your mouth haters
Shut your mouth unbelievers
Someday you gone be offed, get it?

What do you think? Should I quit my day-job?

Doc

oooooh is it on itunes yet????????? Drooling

now we just need a beat for it...




"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
11-07-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 09:02 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Papyrus 46 definitely seems to provide evidence that Paul wrote his epistles I know, it contains most of his epistles and is commonly dated from 175-225 A.D., some scholars even date it as early as 85 A.D. If Ehrman claimed most of Paul's epistles weren't written by Paul, then Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:46 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  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.

So to sum up, first someone claimed that there was no evidence of a darkness during Jesus' crucifixion. I provided evidence that two first century A.D. extra-Biblical sources, Thallus and Phlegon, did mention that darkness. Then it was claimed that Phlegon doesn't count because he was born a few decades after the event occurred.

Essentially you're saying that because Phlegon got his information about the darkness from someone he knew who lived during the time or another source of his day that he can't be considered a reliable source. However, using that logic is like saying that reporters can't interview other sources or use documents as sources, if they didn't witness it themselves their testimony is invalid. That sort of standard is absurd.

So ultimately multiple apostles as well as Thallus and Phlegon mention the darkness of Jesus' day. You don't want to accept the Gospel witness. You don't want to accept Phlegon as a source because he was born slightly after it happened and must have learned about it from someone else or a written source. And I haven't seen Thallus addressed at all.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 11:25 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 09:02 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Papyrus 46 definitely seems to provide evidence that Paul wrote his epistles I know, it contains most of his epistles and is commonly dated from 175-225 A.D., some scholars even date it as early as 85 A.D. If Ehrman claimed most of Paul's epistles weren't written by Paul, then Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about.

I was citing Ehrman re: the gospels, not the epistles, although I'm sure he would agree with the general consensus of NT scholars that Paul only wrote about half of the epistles attributed to him (I don't recall saying "most" -- just that he didn't write all of them).

Ehrman, by the way, has a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is a professional NT scholar. He does this for a living. I would be willing to bet that he "knows what he's talking about" to a far greater extent than you do. If you want to dispute that, please present your credentials.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-07-2014, 12:17 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 12:29 PM by Jzyehoshua.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 10:21 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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).

1 Corinthians 15:8 as well as 9:1.

(11-07-2014 10:21 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

James 1:1 and 2:1 both refer to Jesus as the "Lord Jesus Christ" and Jesus is referred to a dozen other times as Lord in the epistle.

(11-07-2014 10:21 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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).

1 Peter 5:12 just says Peter wrote the epistle by Silvanus, the Greek word "dia" is translated as "by" and to argue Peter wrote the letter "through" Silvanus you'd need to claim that Greek word "dia" means "through" instead of "by" or "with." Because otherwise it could just be saying they were writing the letter together as a team, or that Peter was staying with Silvanus and thus Silvanus was nearby. Either way, it's a really flimsy argument to argue against Peter's authorship of 1 Peter.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/...v/dia.html

And maybe Ehrman claims most scholars disagree with Peter's authorship of 2 Peter but I suspect Ehrman is just making that up to push his point of view, because there are a number of scholars who disagree with him, e.g. M.J. Kruger, J. Duff, E.M.B. Green, S.T. Zahn, and F. Spitta.

Acts 4:13 just observes the Pharisees marvelling at how the apostles can know so much given their lack of formal background, just like they marvelled at how Jesus knew languages so well despite having never been taught. (John 7:15)

(11-07-2014 10:21 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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.

The point on Jude does have some merit, it does quote a controversial book, 1 Enoch. The early church did not dispute its authenticity, but it does raise a can of worms because accepting it essentially means acknowledging 1 Enoch also (which by the way is well preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls like the book of Jubilees).

(11-07-2014 10:21 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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

Josephus only addressed this later because Christianity was originally not relevant to Rome or most historians early on until Paul's testimony before Rome's leaders put it in the spotlight, and Roman Christians got blamed by Nero. Christianity took several decades to achieve the prominence necessary to make historians of Josephus' caliber take notice. Nero burned Rome and blamed Christians for it in 64 A.D. whereas Jesus' crucifixion was initially just a local Judean incident of no concern to the Roman Empire, and essentially occurring in a far-off holding of the empire. That's why your historical sources typically address it a few decades later.

Nonetheless, quite a few of those sources are close enough to the time Jesus lived to have been easily capable of verifying the events from those who had lived during Jesus' time and witnessed what had happened, or to check written sources for themselves. A credible historian like Josephus would certainly have been careful to verify that there was truth to his claims of Jesus' existence. This degree of evidence for a historical figure's existence is actually considerable compared to other historical figures. As pointed out by Josh McDowell in 'More Than a Carpenter', many ancient documents and records of historical figures are preserved by manuscripts dating centuries and often thousands of years after the original events, yet historians accept them as reliable.

Caesar's Gallic Wars for example is preserved by 9 or 10 documents dating at earliest 900 years after he lived. Having multiple sources and documents from within a century of the event or person in question is actually considered exceptional evidence by historians, or at least for any document not named the Bible.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
At work.

Sorry for throwing an oar in,

However, in relation to Caesar and the verification their of, we also have the corroborating archological evidence of huge amounts of earth works in what was Gaul. We seem to have no, zip, nada corroborating evidence of anything (miraculous or other wise) of any supposed Jesus character. ............ So, there is that..

I know folks have pointed out on these forums before about the differance between the quality of evidence for Caesar Vs J.C. but I'll await their pointing it properly.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 11:25 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 09:02 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Papyrus 46 definitely seems to provide evidence that Paul wrote his epistles I know, it contains most of his epistles and is commonly dated from 175-225 A.D., some scholars even date it as early as 85 A.D. If Ehrman claimed most of Paul's epistles weren't written by Paul, then Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about.

JZ,
How does Papyrus 46 prove that Paul wrote the epistles? Which scholars give it an early date? Please provide references or citations.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
11-07-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 01:00 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Sorry for throwing an oar in,

However, in relation to Caesar and the verification their of, we also have the corroborating archological evidence of huge amounts of earth works in what was Gaul. We seem to have no, zip, nada corroborating evidence of anything (miraculous or other wise) of any supposed Jesus character. ............ So, there is that..

I know folks have pointed out on these forums before about the differance between the quality of evidence for Caesar Vs J.C. but I'll await their pointing it properly.

Much cheers to all.

Oh, don't worry about it. It gets much worse.

(11-07-2014 12:17 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Caesar's Gallic Wars for example is preserved by 9 or 10 documents dating at earliest 900 years after he lived. Having multiple sources and documents from within a century of the event or person in question is actually considered exceptional evidence by historians, or at least for any document not named the Bible.

Gotcha. Let's ignore for the moment the vast wealth of material and corroborating evidence, and let's pretend the written sources are 900 years later (!) even though they're much older.

(11-07-2014 12:17 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Nero burned Rome and blamed Christians for it in 64 A.D. ...

Whoops! Turns out lacking sources and only having contradictory later references is no obstacle to making firm conclusions after all - as long as it's narratively convenient to do so.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: