The cost of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2014, 04:09 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(28-08-2014 03:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 02:33 AM)phil.a Wrote:  kingschosen:

OK I get that, but can I ask you something -

Was Jesus a Christian?

Phil

Please excuse my sardonicism, but that is a vacuous question.

In terms of silly semantics, of course not... of course he wasn't a "Christian" in denotation... how could He be? The word means "little Christ" and is modeled after Him.

This is one of the adsurd and ridiculous questions that are asked to Christians to try and confused them or "get" them or "catch" them due to its semantic nature. I find them fairly insulting and a mockery of my intelligence.

Moreover, the term is a collective thought and behavorial model for those that call Yahweh God and is based on the teachings of Yahweh and Jesus.

The term is a simple way to condense and identify someone who follows Christ.

(28-08-2014 04:05 AM)phil.a Wrote:  kingschosen:

I apologise if you found the question offensive, it was not my intent to offend.

I actually asked the question because I perceive that you have intelligence, not because I think you lack intelligence. I am happy to shut up if you think it's going somewhere inappropriate though.

Phil

To be fair, I do remember hearing about a teacher in Pakistan (I think) that was arrested for blasphemy for claiming that Muhammad was not a Muslim, because he couldn't be a follower of a religion he had yet to create himself. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-08-2014, 04:37 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
Nah dude, you didn't offend me. I just consider that question rather juvenile because of its absurd nature. If you didn't mean it as an insult, then no harm no foul.

No worries.

Continue to your heart's content.

PS - I though you had to have the last word Tongue

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
28-08-2014, 04:38 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 07:44 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 02:05 PM)ChristianMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 01:42 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You may want to take a theology class or two in christianity, I have a degree in it.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Luke/Acts: Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

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 is 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.

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.

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.

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 - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

To look further into it, the gospel of John presents Jesus quite differently from Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the most widely accepted critical scholarly theory, the gospel of Mark was the first of the Gospels, written approximately 70 CE. Since Jesus died around the year 30, we must assume a gap of approximately 35 to 40 years during which historical traditions about Jesus’s life were passed down orally. Jesus spoke Aramaic; the Gospels are written in Greek thus translation could also be an issue. Because the gospel writers were explicitly writing to encourage faith, most scholars argue that they were not interested in historical accuracy (Albl 282).

Paul refers often to the “traditions” that he has passed on to the congregations: “I praise you because you remember me in everything and holdfast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). From whom did Paul receive his traditions? Paul himself did not know the historical Jesus, but he did know and spend time with Jesus disciples(Albl 283). Thus all writings of Paul in regards to Jesus are based on tradition and stories passed on to him from others.



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.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

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.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they 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?

Works cited:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Really is that all you have got? Im half way through and your strongest arguments are "most scholars don't think so and so wrote it". Really?

There you go, wave aside the plethora of evidence that shows that all writings of jesus were based solely on un-witnessed hearsay Thumbsup

Yes dear Xtian, the majority of scholars admit these facts, there are always a few bat shit crazy fundamentalists that will refuse everything except the alleged word of their lord and savior, mythical jesus. One must wonder, why do the majority of scholars admit this, regardless of which side of the faith question they are on? Because it is true, and to deny it just removes what little credibility creationists have, which isn't enough to fill a thimble. No worries though, cling to your faith like a 4yo to a teddy bear and shut your eyes tight, wouldn't fact any reality to seep into your faith. 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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
28-08-2014, 04:39 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(28-08-2014 02:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...
Jesus is addressing believers here and not unbelievers. He is teaching them and preparing them for trials which they may encounter and how to respond to them and to be aware of them so that the believers won't fall into crises of faith and/or problems with domestic life due to differing beliefs.

So, yeah... He wasn't being aggressive to non-believers in those verses.

LOL

Neither of those two quotes were from Jesus.

Do you know how I know? 'Cause there is no evidence that Jesus said anything.

Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
28-08-2014, 04:54 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(28-08-2014 03:46 AM)phil.a Wrote:  ...
Can you let the other person have the last word?

I can't!

The fact that I can't stop here, proves my point :-)

The more I go on and on and on - just adds more and more proof to what I myself am saying!

Phil

(28-08-2014 04:05 AM)phil.a Wrote:  ...
I am happy to shut up if you think it's going somewhere inappropriate though.

Phil

Consider

Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 05:08 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(28-08-2014 04:37 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nah dude, you didn't offend me. I just consider that question rather juvenile because of its absurd nature. If you didn't mean it as an insult, then no harm no foul.

No worries.

Continue to your heart's content.

OK then, I will gently nudge a bit more, if I may. I do not identify as a Christian, but as you may have inferred from some of the things I've said, I am quite a big fan of Jesus and so have complete respect for anyone who places him at the centre of their worldview.

Re my question, it's true that the question is absurd, but absurdity is the mark of a paradox.

Paradoxes seem like worthless pebbles to be discarded, yet they can also be cracked like a nut to reveal hidden gems. Because this paradox is about Jesus, It's my opinion that resolving the paradox can only take you into an even deeper relationship with Jesus, it's not possible for it to lead in any other direction.

Please just discard it if in fact it does not seem appropriate though!

Quote:PS - I though you had to have the last word Tongue

Correct :-)

How do you think I managed it? :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 05:42 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Liberal scholarship was debunked years ago. Go on then, prove to me that NT was written years later by people who never met Jesus, like Paul?
Dude- you never read your bible, did you?
You know very little of your faith. It's not surprising, because the people that taught you this shit lied to you and purposely left out anything that would give you pause in believing it.

Paul only met "Jesus's spirit", although no one had witness to this. He never met him

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
28-08-2014, 05:55 AM
Re: The cost of atheism
I am surprised this thread has grown this large. I expected it to be a little sizzle and die

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:15 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(28-08-2014 05:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Liberal scholarship was debunked years ago. Go on then, prove to me that NT was written years later by people who never met Jesus, like Paul?
Dude- you never read your bible, did you?
You know very little of your faith. It's not surprising, because the people that taught you this shit lied to you and purposely left out anything that would give you pause in believing it.

Paul only met "Jesus's spirit", although no one had witness to this. He never met him

This is what he doesn't get, even if there were a man named Jesus he would still only be a man, not a clone of a god/himself/son. He would have only be a finite mortal human who managed to market a new religion.

Muhammad is argued as a real man, but he doesn't believe that he talked to a god.

No human talks to "spirits" or gods, they talk to themselves thinking they have,

Getting lost in his comic book does not change the fact that no human of any religion has evidence of any invisible sky hero, even before you get the the first letter of any holy book. His belief in the Christian god is the same as a Muslims or Hindu or Shintoist. They are all human invented placebos because humans do not want to accept their finite reality.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Brian37's post
28-08-2014, 06:26 AM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 01:42 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Liberal scholarship was debunked years ago. Go on then, prove to me that NT was written years later by people who never met Jesus, like Paul?

You may want to take a theology class or two in christianity, I have a degree in it.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Luke/Acts: Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

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 is 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.

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.

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.

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 - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

To look further into it, the gospel of John presents Jesus quite differently from Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the most widely accepted critical scholarly theory, the gospel of Mark was the first of the Gospels, written approximately 70 CE. Since Jesus died around the year 30, we must assume a gap of approximately 35 to 40 years during which historical traditions about Jesus’s life were passed down orally. Jesus spoke Aramaic; the Gospels are written in Greek thus translation could also be an issue. Because the gospel writers were explicitly writing to encourage faith, most scholars argue that they were not interested in historical accuracy (Albl 282).

Paul refers often to the “traditions” that he has passed on to the congregations: “I praise you because you remember me in everything and holdfast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). From whom did Paul receive his traditions? Paul himself did not know the historical Jesus, but he did know and spend time with Jesus disciples(Albl 283). Thus all writings of Paul in regards to Jesus are based on tradition and stories passed on to him from others.



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.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

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.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they 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?

Works cited:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

BOOM!

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: