| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 10:48 AM
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I've often seen the statement from theists of one stripe or another that noone would suffer for a false religion. Then I only have to look at history over my lifetime and words like Jonestown, Wacco, World Trade Center, marine barracks, Northern Ireland, Heavens Gate come to mind quickly. Along with those words came the images of a Buddhist on fire, bloody Muslims flogging themselves, Hindus crawling and prostrating mile after mile.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
| Quote: | | Why do people keep referring to Todangst? Who is he? |
He posts here every blue moon as well. He was a regular at the old board.
There were many famous historians in the time and place that this Jesus was suppose to be alive. They missed recording him somehow.
Jesus was the rock star of his time, in the Bible. Huge crowds would great him, in the Bible. But outside of the Bible in his alleged time frame *crickets chirp*
Gettin' in Tune, you can read Todangst and other authors posts in RRS HERE
This post might help answer your question about historians of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nimitz wrote: | I've often seen the statement from theists of one stripe or another that noone would suffer for a false religion. Then I only have to look at history over my lifetime and words like Jonestown, Wacco, World Trade Center, marine barracks, Northern Ireland, Heavens Gate come to mind quickly. Along with those words came the images of a Buddhist on fire, bloody Muslims flogging themselves, Hindus crawling and prostrating mile after mile.
Gettin' In Tune wrote:
| Quote: | | Why do people keep referring to Todangst? Who is he? |
He posts here every blue moon as well. He was a regular at the old board.
There were many famous historians in the time and place that this Jesus was suppose to be alive. They missed recording him somehow.
Jesus was the rock star of his time, in the Bible. Huge crowds would great him, in the Bible. But outside of the Bible in his alleged time frame *crickets chirp*
Gettin' in Tune, you can read Todangst and other authors posts in RRS HERE
This post might help answer your question about historians of the time. |
Todangst's argument can be easily shot down. Jesus, if he existed and was popular as it is claimed in the bible, would most likely be an unknown outside of Jerusalem and a few hick towns around. The real center was Rome, where politicians, philosophers, thinkers, writers, historians were more likely to be. If not there, then Greece would be the next place to be. And that Pontius Pilate did a swift job of getting rid of him, there is no reason why the people of importance would have heard of this renegade.
Mr_C made a tactical error in invoking Todangst's argument, but the rest of the matter he presented was better than what romans had to say. Why I give the first round to Mr_C... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Hey, Everybody!
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4147
Local time: 12:48 AM
Location: Dippin' my balls in it.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Todangst's argument can be easily shot down. Jesus, if he existed and was popular as it is claimed in the bible, would most likely be an unknown outside of Jerusalem and a few hick towns around. The real center was Rome, where politicians, philosophers, thinkers, writers, historians were more likely to be. If not there, then Greece would be the next place to be. And that Pontius Pilate did a swift job of getting rid of him, there is no reason why the people of importance would have heard of this renegade. |
Remember, the Romans didn't care about some obscure Jewish prophecy. They considered his crime to be challenging the power of Caesar. That would have made him a renegade of some renown, at least in political circles. In his time, a direct challenge to the authority of Rome would be comparable to the American colonial revolt and would have warranted at least some ink.
The siege of Masada is historically famous, yet a man who challenged Caesar's power to rule goes unnoticed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 10:48 AM
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you're a historian in Jerulsalem during the time that Jesus was suppose to be alive and you recorded Jewish society and you miss the biggest, most famous Jew in town..... one who claims to be the fucking Messiah...you missed the throngs of people...you miss the miracles.... you missed you miss the earthquake.... you miss the sun going dark... you miss the zombies walking the streets... in your own home "hick" town?!
A total silence about the man, his life, his ministry, the miracles, recording the Jewish religious leaders reaction to him, the Jewish communitys knowledge of him, his execution, ect. NOTHING! From someone with a ticket to a front row seat. Not Rome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FlatEarth1024 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Todangst's argument can be easily shot down. Jesus, if he existed and was popular as it is claimed in the bible, would most likely be an unknown outside of Jerusalem and a few hick towns around. The real center was Rome, where politicians, philosophers, thinkers, writers, historians were more likely to be. If not there, then Greece would be the next place to be. And that Pontius Pilate did a swift job of getting rid of him, there is no reason why the people of importance would have heard of this renegade. |
Remember, the Romans didn't care about some obscure Jewish prophecy. They considered his crime to be challenging the power of Caesar. That would have made him a renegade of some renown, at least in political circles. In his time, a direct challenge to the authority of Rome would be comparable to the American colonial revolt and would have warranted at least some ink.
The siege of Masada is historically famous, yet a man who challenged Caesar's power to rule goes unnoticed? |
He and his twelve apostles, a real threat to Caesar??? There were thousands of criminals lining up the road to Rome on any given day. A delusional Jew with no credibility wouldn't have made page 99 if they had had a daily in Rome... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nimitz wrote: | If you're a historian in Jerulsalem during the time that Jesus was suppose to be alive and you recorded Jewish society and you miss the biggest, most famous Jew in town..... one who claims to be the fucking Messiah...you missed the throngs of people...you miss the miracles.... you missed you miss the earthquake.... you miss the sun going dark... you miss the zombies walking the streets... in your own home "hick" town?!
A total silence about the man, his life, his ministry, the miracles, recording the Jewish religious leaders reaction to him, the Jewish communitys knowledge of him, his execution, ect. NOTHING! From someone with a ticket to a front row seat. Not Rome. |
There were hundreds of delusional dudes like him who made that claim. And as to his celebrity, it lasted less than a week, from Palm Sunday to Friday, IF NT is to be taken on its word. We don't need that argument of celebrity to shoot down the Jesus myth, come one, get real... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 10:48 AM
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There were hundreds of delusional dudes like him who made that claim. |
Can you give us a link to those Jews who claim to be the Messiah in Jerusalem in that time frame? Born of a virgin, performed miracles, and was executed by Romans. A Jew who was know and condemned by the Jewish community, and it's religious leadership?
jesusneverexisted.com/
| Quote: | The "witnesses" who saw and heard nothing
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18 ).
One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.
With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).
Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.
What is very significant, however, is that Philo's theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman.
|
Even disregarding his celebrity that went unnoticed for a moment, you'd think the townies would notice all the other wide spread phenomenons and fucking zombies! 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nimitz wrote: | | Quote: | | There were hundreds of delusional dudes like him who made that claim. |
Can you give us a link to those Jews who claim to be the Messiah in Jerusalem in that time frame? Born of a virgin, performed miracles, and was executed by Romans. A Jew who was know and condemned by the Jewish community, and it's religious leadership?
jesusneverexisted.com/
| Quote: | The "witnesses" who saw and heard nothing
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18 ).
One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.
With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).
Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.
What is very significant, however, is that Philo's theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman.
|
Even disregarding his celebrity that went unnoticed for a moment, you'd think the townies would notice all the other wide spread phenomenons and fucking zombies!
|
That testimony, or lack of it from Philo, would only indicate that Jesus was not a rock star that he was made to be much later on, just another insignifant shit disturber. All that stuff about being born of a virgin and miracles were taken from different mythologies and added to the story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caseagainstfaith
God's gift to atheism
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Posts: 3536
Local time: 12:48 AM
Location: Houston, TX USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | I've posted my intro.
link |
Kickin' ass, there, Mr. C!
_________________
Please visit my site at www.caseagainstfaith.com featuring critiques of Lee Strobel and other apologetics
Check out my InfidelGuy interviews, tapes 117 and 269 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just poked my nose into one on one. Usually a ghost town in here.. Pretty interesting topic though and I finally figured out who they are talking about when they speak about the user romans.
Now I've my basics on this topic and as richard carrier says... you need some pretty good resources and knowledge/skills to actually thoroughly get into this topic.
Just some points I'd like to go over.. I'm not going to quote specifics... that's Mr_C's job 
Romans basically throws himself off a bridge by opening up with the new testament as his front of evidence.
He than moves on to the claim that a religion could not grow up unified in such short a time if the character of jesus wasnt legitimate. He seemingly provides no points to actually prove this fact... other than the fact that some articles written by 1-2 people are pro-christian... ok this proves that this unified church of 1-2 people... hell we at least agree the church was a bit larger than 1-2 people.
He than moves on to thallus and tacitus. Thallus being wrong due to the fact that eclipses do not happen during full moons... and science itself can go back to this time and show that the eclipse is infact 4 years earlier. So this is not evidence at all... unless you're going to redate the death of JEsus. Tacitus being wrong obviously for many reasons... my main points against this guy is that fact that the facts don't point to Jesus at all... furthermore tacitus actually goes into much much much further detail as to the historicity of hercules as a real person with real powers rather than Jesus. Quite the historian...
This pretty much concludes Romans.
For Mr_c's intro.. #1 and 2 I agree with no issue.
#3 is moreso a newish topic which I'm acquainted with but not entirely knowledgable about. From what I see of it... it doesn't propose a great deal honestly since the new testament as a whole has been discounted already in #2. So #3 means nothing.
#4 is where I find some love. I have honestly never come across this before. Though this is much more of a backstop of the entire point here... if he didn't exist... ofcoarse he never fulfilled the prophecies... if he did exist... the question as to did he have magical powers and fulfill the prophecies or was he just a man is the good old debate.
The rest I agree.
So obviously Mr_c is winning here... he has added in my opinion a number of things which are just filler and have no true use in the debate; at least in my opinion.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Hey, Everybody!
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4147
Local time: 12:48 AM
Location: Dippin' my balls in it.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Romans basically throws himself off a bridge by opening up with the new testament as his front of evidence. |
Honestly, I can't really see any kind of resolution other than "agree to disagree" here. Aside from the NT and maybe Josephus, I can't imagine what sort of citations Romans can definitively point to. Remember, this is the guy who said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Your science is not recorded in the bible, therefore I reject its validity". So I expect most if not all of his argument to be biblically based.
I see this debate ultimately turning into "See! It says so right here in the bible!" versus "Well, it doesn't say so anyplace else", which ultimately will result in several rounds of parry and thrust with no hopeful outcome.
Maybe I'm wrong, but... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eyedunno
The Great JuJu at the Bottom of the Sea
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3799
Local time: 10:48 AM
Location: Cin City, OH!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Romans basically throws himself off a bridge by opening up with the new testament as his front of evidence. |
Eh, what else is there aside from MAYBE the Gospel of Thomas and (less convincingly yet) Jospehus?
| munky99999 wrote: | | He than moves on to the claim that a religion could not grow up unified in such short a time if the character of jesus wasnt legitimate. He seemingly provides no points to actually prove this fact... other than the fact that some articles written by 1-2 people are pro-christian... ok this proves that this unified church of 1-2 people... hell we at least agree the church was a bit larger than 1-2 people. |
Yeah, I too was very unimpressed with this bald assertion.
| munky99999 wrote: | | #4 is where I find some love. I have honestly never come across this before. Though this is much more of a backstop of the entire point here... if he didn't exist... ofcoarse he never fulfilled the prophecies... if he did exist... the question as to did he have magical powers and fulfill the prophecies or was he just a man is the good old debate. |
Yeah, his argument does seem to make a good case that that prophecy was a fuckup. But so what? Sure, it could be the product of it being purely mythical. But it could also be that actual followers of the actual Jesus believed it to be prophecy, believed it had to apply to their rabbi, and thus spread it, making it gospel. It could also just be bullshit made up by Jesus himself. And there are other possibilities as well. I don't see how this supports Mr. C's case (though by no means does it hurt it either). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 10:48 AM
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 BRAINS!
Faith
Knowledge
Facts
Beliefs
Sort them out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't want to specifically quote intros but now I'm going to be specifically quote the shit out of these posts. 
| Quote: | | In my estimation these two points are essentially the same point just differant approaches. |
These 2 are separate for a reason but I think it is fair enough to taken them on together if that fits your position.
| Quote: | | Actually I believe this is the only argument the Jesus Mythicist can possibly put forward |
You're lucky this is your belief that it is so... it's quite obvious though that it's absurd.
| Quote: | | since there are no ancient manuscripts that descredit the existence of Christ on the contrary |
This is a straight up fallacy... the same fallacy that most detectives of the law often commit to attempt to trick people into confessing and such... but the basics are wrong... essentially you are asking for negative proof or for someone to essentially must have an alibi. That's like suggesting that the CURRENT day historians aren't discrediting the contemporary existence of JEsus... you know since he exists RIGHT NOW. I guess logically to you Jesus must be doing his second coming right now.
| Quote: | | It fallaciacly elevates the standard of evidence to a level that is not at all practical for any historian to look back into ancient history to make judgements about the historicle reliability of any number of people who lived in the ancient past. |
Certainly sounds like a factual claim that you can at least provide some evidence for. Perhaps even saying what fallacy is being used... I know this argument well but it's never put in this way ever.
| Quote: | | Papyrus was not very durable and was not easy to come by. |
Most of the writings from the era were copied word for word and similar ways to preserve the writings. There is an entire science behind validating and such.. so durability is not a factor. As for availability... Jesus apparently lived in one of the biggest places perfect for these supplies. It was pretty easy to come by.
| Quote: | | So the writing down of events was limited to individuals who had access and training to do so. |
Which actually is quite a few people. Which Philo for example is a person who wrote down all these facts of this area... who just so happens to never speak about Jesus...
| Quote: | | Consider this example. There is less proof of the existence of "Caiaphus the High preist" than there is Christ. |
I'm not touching this one ... but these are essentially red herrings... but destroy this... If we both agree to make caiaphus mythical also... perhaps we can also agree Christ is mythical.
| Quote: | | However he is mentioned in the Gospels and in Josephus. |
To which no doubt will be shown to be inaccurate... if not the fact that he has already discredited it as for gospels for example.
| Quote: | | His tomb was uncovered in 1990 showing the even though the attestation was limited it still was proof that he did in fact exist. (Information taken from Henry Martin "Proving the Historic Jesus" and Metzger and Ehrman "The Text of the New Testament" |
What a joke.
| Quote: | | While I diagree with the assumptions made when dating the Gospel of Mark it is not dated suffieciently later to be of significance in this debate. 30 to 50 years is nothing when determining the realibility of an historicle event. |
This is like ME writing a book on Elvis or WW2 as an eyewitness... considering I was born in the 1980s this is absurd. Nobody would take it seriously... infact I MIGHT get some things right... I'd expect quite a few inaccuracies. Which is insane considering the state of the internet and publishings. Furthermore, I would have no problem at all in creating a fictional soldier that my book follows. While misrepresenting him as a real soldier. People would generally discount the entire book and would almost never ever bother in arguing the content within. IF perhaps I'm capable of deluding people into believing the book is real(hell LRon Hubbard did delude some people... so how hard is it?) maybe 1000 years down the road... people consider my fictional soldier as entirely historically true... what's the point in arguing this fact... there are many different soldiers in WW2.
| Quote: | | It is well within the life time of people to talk with eyewittnesses or for people to discredit what has been said and to write alternate accounts. |
Considering christianity never became any sort of icon for a few hundred years... it's just like all these conspiracy theory kind of people... virtually nobody has the need to go search out any of these tiny ass 1-manned conspiracy theories... Penn and tellar's bullshit does go find some back alley idiots but they do it to illustrate the fact and not to discredit this one person... now add in a few hundred years and say this theory becomes largely accepted... people start needing to argue this fact... which is exactly what you see... people started discrediting JEsus' historicity back to the time of Eusebius and around that area. A person only a few hundred years after the fact were discrediting the historical character of jesus and the Jezuzfreaks of this time such as Eusebius had a need of collecting evidence for the historical jesus and LIE for JEsus and interpolate a number of works to create evidence for JEsus... if they are creating evidence as clearly these is none... than this debate has been over for over a thousand years. The sad fact is that Christians spread the faith by the sword and persecuted non-christians for a very long time. Leading to many christians in the world.
| Quote: | | It is quite frankly very easy to recognize interpolations of any manuscript. |
Unfortunately for us this is entirely false and you by stating that it's easy are just intellectually dishonest and possibly setting up a poisoning the well fallacy... so you may be able to argue that since they are looking so hard to find interpolation of a manuscript that they aren't finding interpolation at all.
| Quote: | | And even when the interpolations are removed Joseph is obviously talking about a historicle Jesus but gives no hint at being a Christian himself as the interpolations would make us believe. |
You mean Josephus right? Anyway I think I will allow Mr_C to take this one on... I'm quite sure that he will.
| Quote: | | As stated above only a portion of the masses had the resources to write anything down. |
Which isn't true.
| Quote: | | And the documents that were in existance if thought no longer needed because of better sources or the author not easily understood than the papyrus would be washed and re-used. |
I actually discount this as a thing which overall destroys all these... I factor in the fact that "the victors write history" and the fact that the christians would have destroyed very embarassing things... such as we seem to be missing gaps in tacitus which would have certainly included jesus given he existed(years 29-31) but the christian scribes seem to have misplaced these bits... if these jezuzfreaks saw jesus in there... you can bet it would have made it through history.
| Quote: | | The reason these gospels were circulated and the pseudo-pigrapha wasn't was because the people who were in a position to know they were reliable considered them reliable. (see above argument) ""My kids crying please excuse all typos"" |
Aww no response to the rest? HBA don't cap his response off just yet...
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 7:48 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FlatEarth1024 wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | Romans basically throws himself off a bridge by opening up with the new testament as his front of evidence. |
Honestly, I can't really see any kind of resolution other than "agree to disagree" here. Aside from the NT and maybe Josephus, I can't imagine what sort of citations Romans can definitively point to. Remember, this is the guy who said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Your science is not recorded in the bible, therefore I reject its validity". So I expect most if not all of his argument to be biblically based.
I see this debate ultimately turning into "See! It says so right here in the bible!" versus "Well, it doesn't say so anyplace else", which ultimately will result in several rounds of parry and thrust with no hopeful outcome.
Maybe I'm wrong, but... |
I think the point though is that the whole JEsus=anything other than myth is standing on very little legs and treading rapids. I'm not familiar with this "Your science is not recorded in the bible, therefore I reject its validity" thing.
| Eyedunno wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | Romans basically throws himself off a bridge by opening up with the new testament as his front of evidence. |
Eh, what else is there aside from MAYBE the Gospel of Thomas and (less convincingly yet) Jospehus? |
See above essentially. The gospel of Thomas dies from the same argument as the gospels essentially... it was written by people with the express reason to lie for jesus. Furthermore... the image of jesus is quite mythical and non-entity if I recall correctly... infact these deist christian types would love the gospel of thomas again if I remember correctly... if I remember correctly jesus had very Gaia properties like omnipresence and the power to control weather and such... though even more wacky in the gospel there was a command as to how you have to circumcise babies before they are entirely born... so something like leaving the head still in the vagina before birth and circumcise them. Lots of fucked up shit... certainly not something I'd be using to base the historicity of Jesus off of..
| Eyedunno wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | #4 is where I find some love. I have honestly never come across this before. Though this is much more of a backstop of the entire point here... if he didn't exist... ofcoarse he never fulfilled the prophecies... if he did exist... the question as to did he have magical powers and fulfill the prophecies or was he just a man is the good old debate. |
Yeah, his argument does seem to make a good case that that prophecy was a fuckup. But so what? Sure, it could be the product of it being purely mythical. But it could also be that actual followers of the actual Jesus believed it to be prophecy, believed it had to apply to their rabbi, and thus spread it, making it gospel. It could also just be bullshit made up by Jesus himself. And there are other possibilities as well. I don't see how this supports Mr. C's case (though by no means does it hurt it either). |
Still... it doesn't really relate to the debate though. It's beyond the fact entirely. So adding this does nothing for the debate. Other than to just throw another hand in the pot...
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
