TA List Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 11:31 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:46 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  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.

Anything from Thallus and Phlegon is hearsay. There is no support or evidence for what they say.

And you can't use the gospels to prove the gospels.

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
11-07-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
Oh FFS!

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 12:17 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(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.

Context, my good man, context. In Corinthians 15 he is clearly talking about apparitions of Jesus after the Resurrection, and most scholars take this to be a reference to Paul's "vision" on the way to Damascus. Likewise for 9:1. If Paul had actually met Jesus in the flesh, I'm sure that would have merited more than 2 casual and ambiguous mentions (and 15:8 isn't even ambiguous -- it is clearly a post-Resurrection "appearance").
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-07-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
Why is eveyone doing this douche's home work for him/her?

Consider


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 08:28 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 08:41 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 11:31 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:46 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  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.

no that is what is called false logic. When one makes a BS delusional made up fabricated supernatural extraordinary story alleging magical miraculous events, one would expect there to have been some written record AT THE TIME, not some guy years later who heard someone tell a great story and took it as fact...even in the face of ZERO worldwide recording of this event...that is called story time, and while story time is entertaining, you are actually trying to say it is fact....sorry, nice try. If the world had gone dark midday for 3 hours, there would be record of it AT THE TIME.

"and I haven't seen Thallus addressed at all"...try reading my post. here I will help;

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.

Just got home late from a date night with my wife, will dismantle your reply tomorrow.

"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
11-07-2014, 08:57 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 10:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 12:17 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(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.

Josephus never claimed Jebus existed. There are two possible references to him. One was clearly a forgery, (Chapter 18) and everyone knows that. The text does not flow from about the quote or below the quote. It's in different handwriting and different ink, and breaks the POINT of the entire book. The earliest copy is from 1100 CE. The purpose of the book was to prove Vespasian, (the Roman Emperor) was the messiah. YOU think he was the messiah Jzyehoshua ? Cuz if you DON'T, you really shouldn't be quoting Josephus, (a client in the PAY of the Roman emperor). The other quote, in Chapter 20 is a reference to a "brother" (and all Christians were called "brother") James, so there is no way of knowing what he was talking about. And BTW, tell us where YOUR PhD is from, as long as you think you can dismiss Ehrman.

Still awaiting the argument for the AUTHORITY of any of this crap.

Deception was the game they played, in an age of pious fraud, and they admitted it : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 01:22 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 08:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 11:31 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  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.

no that is what is called false logic. When one makes a BS delusional made up fabricated supernatural extraordinary story alleging magical miraculous events, one would expect there to have been some written record AT THE TIME, not some guy years later who heard someone tell a great story and took it as fact...even in the face of ZERO worldwide recording of this event...that is called story time, and while story time is entertaining, you are actually trying to say it is fact....sorry, nice try. If the world had gone dark midday for 3 hours, there would be record of it AT THE TIME.

"and I haven't seen Thallus addressed at all"...try reading my post. here I will help;

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.

Just got home late from a date night with my wife, will dismantle your reply tomorrow.

Not one Jew, (some which we KNOW were in Jerusalem at the time, which probably included Philo of Alexandria) said ONE thing about it. Not ONE Jew said anything about the Sanhedrin being called into session the first and ONLY time in ALL of history, on Passover weekend. Not ONE Jew mentioned the temple curtain being spontaneously torn, (a first and momentous event). Not ONE Roman or Jew mentions the zombie invasion of Jerusalem by all the others Matthew claimed rose with Jebus on Easter, nor does anyone say anything about what actually became of all these others who rose. Not one Roman or Jew or anyone pointed out or claimed to have seen all the other empty tombs, or any "split rocks". After having gone to all the trouble to arrest him and try him, upon hearing reports of his supposed resurrection, why is it NOT ONE Jew or Roman proposed a search party to find him, and re-arrest him ?

Why ?

Cuz none of it ever happened. It's all a pile of crap.

Saint Jerome, Father of the Church :
"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus
He, a Father of the Church knew there was something fishy about Paul's writings.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(11-07-2014 07:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Why is eveyone doing this douche's home work for him/her?

Consider

Because it is too lazy. I mean it did come to an atheist forum to do this.

[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
12-07-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:29 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  The ThinkingAtheist list has now been completely debunked here.

Blah blah blah...

Um all of your references seem to be rooted in your fairy-tale book.

You might as well be citing "chapter and verse" out of the Harry Potter series.

Facepalm

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 03:16 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
It's the same tired and fallacious arguments over and over from fools like this. Do they have a queue? Where one makes a bunch of ridiculously uneducated assertions, quotes the same nonsensical book verses, and makes the same bald faced lies about history and once that person is soundly beaten into the ground the next picks up the same talking points paper and launches his wailing stupidity at us?
Is this their diabolical plan? To bore us into the faith? To beat us so repetitively with their credulity that a small sliver of stupid gets lodged in the logical centers of our brain?

I swear if they have to come here and puke idiocy all over the place they could at least have the decency to be entertainingly crazy. This one is so boring.


So boring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: