Total Posts:145|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Overwhelming Historic Evidence for Jesus

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 9:30:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

Josephus
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93"94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.

Tacitus
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

Suetonius
No historical value.

Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians.

Most of these passages, even if authentic (on which there is doubt, especially Jesephus), do not mention a Jesus by name. They reference Christians and Christos or Chrestus. So all you are citing is possible evidence for the existence of Christians and what they may or may not have believed. If you look at the dates (bolded), your claim that the new religion had no time to make up a Jesus, is patently absurd. The only historical evidence you have is that there were Christians and they believed some stuff. Nothing more.
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 9:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me fix the thread title for you:

"The Underwhelming Historic Evidence for Jesus"

A few brief, probably interpolated, hearsay mentions decades afterwards, most in reference to Christianity rather than to any person supposedly at the core of it. No mention at all by any historian contemporary with his alleged life. Actually it probably should be:

""The Overwhelming Lack of Historic Evidence for Jesus"
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like...

This will be fun.

Josephus

Two accounts of Jesus written, one was written pro-Christian, which Josephus was not, making it very likely to be a forgery.

The other has Jews (not Christians) getting angry at the execution of James the Just, and Jews did not get along with Christians at the time, making it a likely forgery or edit. I would say edit since it talks about a different Jesus in the same paragraph.

Tacitus

Who made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect, making it very doubtful that he had any form of historical document or reliable source of information to base his writing off of. He was most likely just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time.

Suetonius,

All this document talks about that is supposedly a reference of Jesus is the mention of the Wise King of the Jews, in a time where a lot of people were claiming to be the Messiah. It was also written late enough that the reliability is questionable.

and Pliny the Younger.

Pliny only mentions the practice of Christians, and asks how to deal with it. He does not offer anything close to evidence of a Jesus.

Seems like the evidence that you provided is questionable at best.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

It is a matter of what is the truth. Is there reliable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have yet to see any.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 10:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 9:42:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like...

This will be fun.

It'll indeed be fun to crush one more history denier.

Josephus

Two accounts of Jesus written, one was written pro-Christian, which Josephus was not, making it very likely to be a forgery.

If you examine the context of it, he was writing about what the first "Christians" (they were not any more than a sect within Judaism back then) thought of Jesus. There's no inconsistency there.

The other has Jews (not Christians) getting angry at the execution of James the Just, and Jews did not get along with Christians at the time, making it a likely forgery or edit. I would say edit since it talks about a different Jesus in the same paragraph.

They were angry because they had been forced to assemble. They were not angry because of the death, exactly, and the rest of the passage makes this perfectly clear.

Tacitus

Who made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect, making it very doubtful that he had any form of historical document or reliable source of information to base his writing off of. He was most likely just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time.

1) Procurator and prefect were practically identical terms then
2) Even if he was there was no Church then, just poor Jewish followers, who could never make up such a good story in the Latin that Tacitus could understand

Suetonius,

All this document talks about that is supposedly a reference of Jesus is the mention of the Wise King of the Jews, in a time where a lot of people were claiming to be the Messiah. It was also written late enough that the reliability is questionable.

Fine discount that, we have enough evidence already in the sources.

and Pliny the Younger.

Pliny only mentions the practice of Christians, and asks how to deal with it. He does not offer anything close to evidence of a Jesus.

Actually he says they are worshipping Chrestus.

Seems like the evidence that you provided is questionable at best.

No it's pretty clear.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

It is a matter of what is the truth. Is there reliable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have yet to see any.

There are tens of accounts of him in the first century and second century, close to when he lived, which is pretty amazing given he was a minor preacher who died young.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 9:16:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 10:28:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/26/2014 9:42:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like...

This will be fun.

It'll indeed be fun to crush one more history denier.

Sorry, but I don't deny history, not in the slightest.

Josephus

Two accounts of Jesus written, one was written pro-Christian, which Josephus was not, making it very likely to be a forgery.

If you examine the context of it, he was writing about what the first "Christians" (they were not any more than a sect within Judaism back then) thought of Jesus. There's no inconsistency there.

If that were true, which it is not, then that means he wasn't even writing about a historical Jesus, just what Christians were saying at the time. It still wouldn't be evidence.

The other has Jews (not Christians) getting angry at the execution of James the Just, and Jews did not get along with Christians at the time, making it a likely forgery or edit. I would say edit since it talks about a different Jesus in the same paragraph.

They were angry because they had been forced to assemble. They were not angry because of the death, exactly, and the rest of the passage makes this perfectly clear.

Yes, they were. Have you even read it? They were angry at his execution (which happened in private, they were not forced to assemble).

Tacitus

Who made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect, making it very doubtful that he had any form of historical document or reliable source of information to base his writing off of. He was most likely just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time.

1) Procurator and prefect were practically identical terms then

Really? What evidence do you have for such a claim? None? Okay.

2) Even if he was there was no Church then, just poor Jewish followers, who could never make up such a good story in the Latin that Tacitus could understand

This point is just ignorant... REALLY ignorant...

Suetonius,

All this document talks about that is supposedly a reference of Jesus is the mention of the Wise King of the Jews, in a time where a lot of people were claiming to be the Messiah. It was also written late enough that the reliability is questionable.

Fine discount that, we have enough evidence already in the sources.

No, you don't. The absolute best piece of evidence is that Christianity spread as fast as it did. That is it.

and Pliny the Younger.

Pliny only mentions the practice of Christians, and asks how to deal with it. He does not offer anything close to evidence of a Jesus.

Actually he says they are worshipping Chrestus.

Yes, he is talking about their WORSHIP, not a historical figure. If someone is talking about the worship of ancient Greeks, and they say "worshiping Zues", does that mean Zues is real? No. It simply means that they were worshiping a figure named Zues. Same thing applies here.

Seems like the evidence that you provided is questionable at best.

No it's pretty clear.

No, it is not. It is painfully obvious that you have not done much research into this. Have you read the documents you are talking about? Doubt it.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

It is a matter of what is the truth. Is there reliable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have yet to see any.

There are tens of accounts of him in the first century and second century, close to when he lived, which is pretty amazing given he was a minor preacher who died young.

He didn't die young for that time period, which you would know if you actually researched this stuff. And there are no historically reliable pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:16:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 10:28:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/26/2014 9:42:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like...

This will be fun.

It'll indeed be fun to crush one more history denier.

Sorry, but I don't deny history, not in the slightest.

Josephus

Two accounts of Jesus written, one was written pro-Christian, which Josephus was not, making it very likely to be a forgery.

If you examine the context of it, he was writing about what the first "Christians" (they were not any more than a sect within Judaism back then) thought of Jesus. There's no inconsistency there.

If that were true, which it is not, then that means he wasn't even writing about a historical Jesus, just what Christians were saying at the time. It still wouldn't be evidence.

The other has Jews (not Christians) getting angry at the execution of James the Just, and Jews did not get along with Christians at the time, making it a likely forgery or edit. I would say edit since it talks about a different Jesus in the same paragraph.

They were angry because they had been forced to assemble. They were not angry because of the death, exactly, and the rest of the passage makes this perfectly clear.

Yes, they were. Have you even read it? They were angry at his execution (which happened in private, they were not forced to assemble).

Tacitus

Who made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect, making it very doubtful that he had any form of historical document or reliable source of information to base his writing off of. He was most likely just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time.

1) Procurator and prefect were practically identical terms then

Really? What evidence do you have for such a claim? None? Okay.

2) Even if he was there was no Church then, just poor Jewish followers, who could never make up such a good story in the Latin that Tacitus could understand

This point is just ignorant... REALLY ignorant...

Suetonius,

All this document talks about that is supposedly a reference of Jesus is the mention of the Wise King of the Jews, in a time where a lot of people were claiming to be the Messiah. It was also written late enough that the reliability is questionable.

Fine discount that, we have enough evidence already in the sources.

No, you don't. The absolute best piece of evidence is that Christianity spread as fast as it did. That is it.

and Pliny the Younger.

Pliny only mentions the practice of Christians, and asks how to deal with it. He does not offer anything close to evidence of a Jesus.

Actually he says they are worshipping Chrestus.

Yes, he is talking about their WORSHIP, not a historical figure. If someone is talking about the worship of ancient Greeks, and they say "worshiping Zues", does that mean Zues is real? No. It simply means that they were worshiping a figure named Zues. Same thing applies here.

Seems like the evidence that you provided is questionable at best.

No it's pretty clear.

No, it is not. It is painfully obvious that you have not done much research into this. Have you read the documents you are talking about? Doubt it.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

It is a matter of what is the truth. Is there reliable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have yet to see any.

There are tens of accounts of him in the first century and second century, close to when he lived, which is pretty amazing given he was a minor preacher who died young.

He didn't die young for that time period, which you would know if you actually researched this stuff. And there are no historically reliable pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus.

And this thread is done.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?

This thread is done because you accurately presented the flaws in their original statement and rebuttal. I was complimenting you.

People are so sensitive in these forums.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:09:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:07:02 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?

This thread is done because you accurately presented the flaws in their original statement and rebuttal. I was complimenting you.

People are so sensitive in these forums.

I got it and was surprised by P1's response.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:24:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:07:02 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?

This thread is done because you accurately presented the flaws in their original statement and rebuttal. I was complimenting you.

People are so sensitive in these forums.

Sorry, it is just that 90% of people that comment on this subject agree with people like Installgentoo, and don't care what people with my position say. I guess I should not have assumed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:59:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 9:42:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like...

This will be fun.

Josephus

Two accounts of Jesus written, one was written pro-Christian, which Josephus was not, making it very likely to be a forgery.

The other has Jews (not Christians) getting angry at the execution of James the Just, and Jews did not get along with Christians at the time, making it a likely forgery or edit. I would say edit since it talks about a different Jesus in the same paragraph.

Tacitus

Who made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect, making it very doubtful that he had any form of historical document or reliable source of information to base his writing off of. He was most likely just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time.

Suetonius,

All this document talks about that is supposedly a reference of Jesus is the mention of the Wise King of the Jews, in a time where a lot of people were claiming to be the Messiah. It was also written late enough that the reliability is questionable.

and Pliny the Younger.

Pliny only mentions the practice of Christians, and asks how to deal with it. He does not offer anything close to evidence of a Jesus.


Seems like the evidence that you provided is questionable at best.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

It is a matter of what is the truth. Is there reliable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have yet to see any.

That's because of the definition you force upon "reliable evidence." For example, he could produce five more references from the first century. Who's to claim that they aren't all forgeries? If they were written after about AD 50, they will be called "hearsay".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:04:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:24:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:07:02 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?

This thread is done because you accurately presented the flaws in their original statement and rebuttal. I was complimenting you.

People are so sensitive in these forums.

Sorry, it is just that 90% of people that comment on this subject agree with people like Installgentoo, and don't care what people with my position say. I guess I should not have assumed.

That's because in order to believe your position, all of the following must be true:

(1) The author of Matthew was not Matthew.
(2) The Book of Matthew was written at a date which precludes the author of the likelihood of knowing Jesus.
(3) The Book of John was not written by the apostle John
(4) I John, II John, III John, and Revelation were not written by John
(5) James was not written by James the Just.
(6) The author of Jude was not a contemporary of Jesus
(7) The apostle Paul never spoke to anyone who had met Jesus
(8) The author of Luke and Acts was confused as to the existence of Christ
(9) References to Jesus Christ in Josephus are all forgeries.
(10) References to Jesus by Tacitus were based upon hearsay.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:19:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:59:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because of the definition you force upon "reliable evidence." For example, he could produce five more references from the first century. Who's to claim that they aren't all forgeries? If they were written after about AD 50, they will be called "hearsay".

It is called the Historical Critical method. Using Higher Criticism, three main questions are asked.
Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there?
If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony?
If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact?
If any of them are "No", it is historically unreliable. If any are unknown, then it is historically questionable.

And when analyzing the documents, Occam's Razor is important.

At 8/27/2014 11:04:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because in order to believe your position, all of the following must be true:

(1) The author of Matthew was not Matthew.

It most likely was not. Matthew was most likely dead when the book was written.

(2) The Book of Matthew was written at a date which precludes the author of the likelihood of knowing Jesus.

It most likely was. Language changes over time. 50 years ago, someone at my age would speak differently than I do. There is a difference is how things are said before and after the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. Matthew includes this language style.

You also must assume that the book itself is accurate about the supernatural aspects in order to explain its power of "prediction".

(3) The Book of John was not written by the apostle John

It most likely was not. Similar reasons for why Matthew was not written by Matthew. John is also one of the books that had one of the most literate authors. John was a poor rural peasant. He would not have been educated enough, nor would he have had money to pay for someone to write it for him.

(4) I John, II John, III John, and Revelation were not written by John

They most likely were not. We know that a person named John wrote the book of Revelations, but it was most likely not the apostle John. The three Johns here were most likely written by John's followers, not John himself. They were also written towards the end of the 1st century, early 2nd, so John would have been dead.

(5) James was not written by James the Just.

James was most likely dead by the time James was written.

(6) The author of Jude was not a contemporary of Jesus

The author does not identify as an apostle, and refers to the apostles in the third person. It was also written in the latter half of the 1st century. There is a small chance that it could have been written by a reliable source, but only a small chance. Occam's Razor does not support it.

(7) The apostle Paul never spoke to anyone who had met Jesus

There is no evidence to suggest that he did.

(8) The author of Luke and Acts was confused as to the existence of Christ

Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who was most likely Paul's companion.

(9) References to Jesus Christ in Josephus are all forgeries.

I address Josephus above, one is most likely a forgery, the other is a likely edit.

(10) References to Jesus by Tacitus were based upon hearsay.

It most likely was.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:07:02 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

Why not talk about the evidence?

This thread is done because you accurately presented the flaws in their original statement and rebuttal.

Hahahaha, no.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:32:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:19:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:59:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because of the definition you force upon "reliable evidence." For example, he could produce five more references from the first century. Who's to claim that they aren't all forgeries? If they were written after about AD 50, they will be called "hearsay".

It is called the Historical Critical method. Using Higher Criticism, three main questions are asked.
Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there?
If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony?
If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact?
If any of them are "No", it is historically unreliable. If any are unknown, then it is historically questionable.

And when analyzing the documents, Occam's Razor is important.

At 8/27/2014 11:04:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because in order to believe your position, all of the following must be true:

(1) The author of Matthew was not Matthew.

It most likely was not. Matthew was most likely dead when the book was written.

But you do not know when the book was written, do you? If so, then by all means tell us - and give us the evidence that it wasn't written earlier. And I do not mean far-fatched assumptions.

(2) The Book of Matthew was written at a date which precludes the author of the likelihood of knowing Jesus.

It most likely was. Language changes over time. 50 years ago, someone at my age would speak differently than I do. There is a difference is how things are said before and after the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. Matthew includes this language style.

You'll have to prove that statement. Actually, the difference in Koine Greek was the difference in tweddle dee and tweddle dum between AD 50 and AD 90.

You also must assume that the book itself is accurate about the supernatural aspects in order to explain its power of "prediction".

Of course the prophesies concerning the fall of the city are correct.

(3) The Book of John was not written by the apostle John

It most likely was not. Similar reasons for why Matthew was not written by Matthew. John is also one of the books that had one of the most literate authors. John was a poor rural peasant. He would not have been educated enough, nor would he have had money to pay for someone to write it for him.

Could you prove how much money John happened to have on him at a given time?

(4) I John, II John, III John, and Revelation were not written by John

They most likely were not. We know that a person named John wrote the book of Revelations, but it was most likely not the apostle John.

Prove it.

The three Johns here were most likely written by John's followers, not John himself. They were also written towards the end of the 1st century, early 2nd, so John would have been dead.

Again, you'll have to prove all of that.

(5) James was not written by James the Just.

James was most likely dead by the time James was written.

"Most likely"? We are sure dealing with a lot of "most likely's", aren't we? Again, you aren't offering a whit of evidence.

(6) The author of Jude was not a contemporary of Jesus

The author does not identify as an apostle, and refers to the apostles in the third person. It was also written in the latter half of the 1st century. There is a small chance that it could have been written by a reliable source, but only a small chance. Occam's Razor does not support it.

And why is it "a small chance"?

(7) The apostle Paul never spoke to anyone who had met Jesus

There is no evidence to suggest that he did.

He said he did. He began writing his epistles in the late 40's/early 50's - about 15-20 years after Jesus died. And he preached Christianity, of course. But in his extensive travels, he never bumped into anyone who knew Jesus. Hmmmmmm.

(8) The author of Luke and Acts was confused as to the existence of Christ

Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who was most likely Paul's companion.

That's why I said "author" instead of "authors". The point remains that you basically must believe that the author of the two books just made stuff up.

(9) References to Jesus Christ in Josephus are all forgeries.

I address Josephus above, one is most likely a forgery, the other is a likely edit.

(10) References to Jesus by Tacitus were based upon hearsay.

It most likely was.

Again, you'll have to give some sort of evidence other than, "Well, I think it was." The amount of evidence you've offered amounts to three naughts, two ciphers, and a zero.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:32:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:19:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:59:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because of the definition you force upon "reliable evidence." For example, he could produce five more references from the first century. Who's to claim that they aren't all forgeries? If they were written after about AD 50, they will be called "hearsay".

It is called the Historical Critical method. Using Higher Criticism, three main questions are asked.
Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there?
If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony?
If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact?
If any of them are "No", it is historically unreliable. If any are unknown, then it is historically questionable.

And when analyzing the documents, Occam's Razor is important.

At 8/27/2014 11:04:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because in order to believe your position, all of the following must be true:

(1) The author of Matthew was not Matthew.

It most likely was not. Matthew was most likely dead when the book was written.

But you do not know when the book was written, do you? If so, then by all means tell us - and give us the evidence that it wasn't written earlier. And I do not mean far-fatched assumptions.

(2) The Book of Matthew was written at a date which precludes the author of the likelihood of knowing Jesus.

It most likely was. Language changes over time. 50 years ago, someone at my age would speak differently than I do. There is a difference is how things are said before and after the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. Matthew includes this language style.

You'll have to prove that statement. Actually, the difference in Koine Greek was the difference in tweddle dee and tweddle dum between AD 50 and AD 90.

You also must assume that the book itself is accurate about the supernatural aspects in order to explain its power of "prediction".

Of course the prophesies concerning the fall of the city are correct.

(3) The Book of John was not written by the apostle John

It most likely was not. Similar reasons for why Matthew was not written by Matthew. John is also one of the books that had one of the most literate authors. John was a poor rural peasant. He would not have been educated enough, nor would he have had money to pay for someone to write it for him.

Could you prove how much money John happened to have on him at a given time?

(4) I John, II John, III John, and Revelation were not written by John

They most likely were not. We know that a person named John wrote the book of Revelations, but it was most likely not the apostle John.

Prove it.

The three Johns here were most likely written by John's followers, not John himself. They were also written towards the end of the 1st century, early 2nd, so John would have been dead.

Again, you'll have to prove all of that.

(5) James was not written by James the Just.

James was most likely dead by the time James was written.

"Most likely"? We are sure dealing with a lot of "most likely's", aren't we? Again, you aren't offering a whit of evidence.

(6) The author of Jude was not a contemporary of Jesus

The author does not identify as an apostle, and refers to the apostles in the third person. It was also written in the latter half of the 1st century. There is a small chance that it could have been written by a reliable source, but only a small chance. Occam's Razor does not support it.

And why is it "a small chance"?

(7) The apostle Paul never spoke to anyone who had met Jesus

There is no evidence to suggest that he did.

He said he did. He began writing his epistles in the late 40's/early 50's - about 15-20 years after Jesus died. And he preached Christianity, of course. But in his extensive travels, he never bumped into anyone who knew Jesus. Hmmmmmm.

(8) The author of Luke and Acts was confused as to the existence of Christ

Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who was most likely Paul's companion.

That's why I said "author" instead of "authors". The point remains that you basically must believe that the author of the two books just made stuff up.

(9) References to Jesus Christ in Josephus are all forgeries.

I address Josephus above, one is most likely a forgery, the other is a likely edit.

(10) References to Jesus by Tacitus were based upon hearsay.

It most likely was.

Again, you'll have to give some sort of evidence other than, "Well, I think it was." The amount of evidence you've offered amounts to three naughts, two ciphers, and a zero.

Wow... Someone here does not know anything about the Historical-Critical method. You also don't understand what Occam's Razor is, or how important it is when talking about history.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:32:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:19:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:59:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because of the definition you force upon "reliable evidence." For example, he could produce five more references from the first century. Who's to claim that they aren't all forgeries? If they were written after about AD 50, they will be called "hearsay".

It is called the Historical Critical method. Using Higher Criticism, three main questions are asked.
Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there?
If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony?
If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact?
If any of them are "No", it is historically unreliable. If any are unknown, then it is historically questionable.

And when analyzing the documents, Occam's Razor is important.

At 8/27/2014 11:04:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
That's because in order to believe your position, all of the following must be true:

(1) The author of Matthew was not Matthew.

It most likely was not. Matthew was most likely dead when the book was written.

But you do not know when the book was written, do you? If so, then by all means tell us - and give us the evidence that it wasn't written earlier. And I do not mean far-fatched assumptions.

(2) The Book of Matthew was written at a date which precludes the author of the likelihood of knowing Jesus.

It most likely was. Language changes over time. 50 years ago, someone at my age would speak differently than I do. There is a difference is how things are said before and after the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. Matthew includes this language style.

You'll have to prove that statement. Actually, the difference in Koine Greek was the difference in tweddle dee and tweddle dum between AD 50 and AD 90.

You also must assume that the book itself is accurate about the supernatural aspects in order to explain its power of "prediction".

Of course the prophesies concerning the fall of the city are correct.

(3) The Book of John was not written by the apostle John

It most likely was not. Similar reasons for why Matthew was not written by Matthew. John is also one of the books that had one of the most literate authors. John was a poor rural peasant. He would not have been educated enough, nor would he have had money to pay for someone to write it for him.

Could you prove how much money John happened to have on him at a given time?

(4) I John, II John, III John, and Revelation were not written by John

They most likely were not. We know that a person named John wrote the book of Revelations, but it was most likely not the apostle John.

Prove it.

The three Johns here were most likely written by John's followers, not John himself. They were also written towards the end of the 1st century, early 2nd, so John would have been dead.

Again, you'll have to prove all of that.

(5) James was not written by James the Just.

James was most likely dead by the time James was written.

"Most likely"? We are sure dealing with a lot of "most likely's", aren't we? Again, you aren't offering a whit of evidence.

(6) The author of Jude was not a contemporary of Jesus

The author does not identify as an apostle, and refers to the apostles in the third person. It was also written in the latter half of the 1st century. There is a small chance that it could have been written by a reliable source, but only a small chance. Occam's Razor does not support it.

And why is it "a small chance"?

(7) The apostle Paul never spoke to anyone who had met Jesus

There is no evidence to suggest that he did.

He said he did. He began writing his epistles in the late 40's/early 50's - about 15-20 years after Jesus died. And he preached Christianity, of course. But in his extensive travels, he never bumped into anyone who knew Jesus. Hmmmmmm.

(8) The author of Luke and Acts was confused as to the existence of Christ

Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who was most likely Paul's companion.

That's why I said "author" instead of "authors". The point remains that you basically must believe that the author of the two books just made stuff up.

(9) References to Jesus Christ in Josephus are all forgeries.

I address Josephus above, one is most likely a forgery, the other is a likely edit.

(10) References to Jesus by Tacitus were based upon hearsay.

It most likely was.

Again, you'll have to give some sort of evidence other than, "Well, I think it was." The amount of evidence you've offered amounts to three naughts, two ciphers, and a zero.



Wow... Someone here does not know anything about the Historical-Critical method. You also don't understand what Occam's Razor is, or how important it is when talking about history.

I'm afraid that I fully understand both of them, and in the case of the former, I pay but little attention to it. It is one tool of many. You seem to play 100% of your argument (if you want to call it that) on one methodology.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

I've already seen it. And no, I did not go to "some Christian website". I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position. It is highly presumptuous at best. That's why I asked you to give it - or give what you felt was the best arguments. You didn't give any.

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

"Historically questionable" does not equate with "not evidence" in the first place. I gave self-explanatory evidence.

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.

By "prove", I mean give your best, most reliable evidence. Heck, I already know you can't "prove" anything, strictly speaking. So we'll back off from that. I'll even back off from "reliable evidence", because you can't give that, either.

The trouble is: you haven't given ANY sort of evidence. Nothing at all. Yet in order for you to have a chance at being correct, everything must fall into place perfectly for you. The apostle Paul could have NEVER met anyone who actually knew Jesus, and I'm still just fine. That's very unlikely, but I guess it's possible. If he ever did, however, then you're wrong. If the apostle Matthew actually wrote Matthew, then you're wrong. If Tacitus based his writings on anything other than common pro-Christian gossip, then you're wrong. If the author of James was actually James the Just, then you're wrong. Surely you have enough sense to realize that the odds are greatly against you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:52:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Wow... Someone here does not know anything about the Historical-Critical method. You also don't understand what Occam's Razor is, or how important it is when talking about history.

I'm afraid that I fully understand both of them, and in the case of the former, I pay but little attention to it. It is one tool of many. You seem to play 100% of your argument (if you want to call it that) on one methodology.

It is the method used by the majority of Historians and Scholars. Sorry if I like consistency in my results.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

I've already seen it. And no, I did not go to "some Christian website". I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position. It is highly presumptuous at best. That's why I asked you to give it - or give what you felt was the best arguments. You didn't give any.

You need to learn to do your own research. You cannot rely on people to give every spec of information. You wanting me to present every piece of information for you shows that you really don't care what is said, that you will ignore any evidence brought up.

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

"Historically questionable" does not equate with "not evidence" in the first place. I gave self-explanatory evidence.

It does. It has to be reliable to be evidence. Also, what "self-explanatory evidence" did you provide?

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.

By "prove", I mean give your best, most reliable evidence. Heck, I already know you can't "prove" anything, strictly speaking. So we'll back off from that. I'll even back off from "reliable evidence", because you can't give that, either.

I can, but I prefer to motivate people to do objective research. If they show that they have at least tried, then I will take them seriously. I only go into more detail when talking to someone I take seriously.

The trouble is: you haven't given ANY sort of evidence. Nothing at all. Yet in order for you to have a chance at being correct, everything must fall into place perfectly for you. The apostle Paul could have NEVER met anyone who actually knew Jesus, and I'm still just fine. That's very unlikely, but I guess it's possible. If he ever did, however, then you're wrong. If the apostle Matthew actually wrote Matthew, then you're wrong. If Tacitus based his writings on anything other than common pro-Christian gossip, then you're wrong. If the author of James was actually James the Just, then you're wrong. Surely you have enough sense to realize that the odds are greatly against you.

Only if you don't know what objective research is. The Gospels were all written anonymously, so saying "Matthew wrote Matthew" means nothing. The name was assigned to the writing later. Saying a specific James wrote James is just an assertion.

Want to know what, I will give you some half-a**ed links if you want. If you want me to provide some good quality links, then actually start researching this objectively. Show me that you are serious. Then I will actually take you seriously.
http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...
http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:06:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 9:30:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

Josephus
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93"94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.

Tacitus
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

Suetonius
No historical value.

Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians.

Most of these passages, even if authentic (on which there is doubt, especially Jesephus), do not mention a Jesus by name.

Why does that matter? How does that 'falsify' Jesus?

It is a non-professional, and invalid reason to reject what clearly is.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are innumerable records of Supermen and Gotham City.

They must be real
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:22:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:06:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:52:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Wow... Someone here does not know anything about the Historical-Critical method. You also don't understand what Occam's Razor is, or how important it is when talking about history.

I'm afraid that I fully understand both of them, and in the case of the former, I pay but little attention to it. It is one tool of many. You seem to play 100% of your argument (if you want to call it that) on one methodology.

It is the method used by the majority of Historians and Scholars. Sorry if I like consistency in my results.

No, it's not. The majority of Biblical scholars do not employ the Historical-Critical methodology to the exclusion of all others.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

I've already seen it. And no, I did not go to "some Christian website". I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position. It is highly presumptuous at best. That's why I asked you to give it - or give what you felt was the best arguments. You didn't give any.

You need to learn to do your own research.

Do my own research? Allow me to repeat myself: I've already seen it .... I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position."

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

"Historically questionable" does not equate with "not evidence" in the first place. I gave self-explanatory evidence.

It does. It has to be reliable to be evidence. Also, what "self-explanatory evidence" did you provide?

It is self-explanatory that people, various people, made claims of seeing Jesus.

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.

By "prove", I mean give your best, most reliable evidence. Heck, I already know you can't "prove" anything, strictly speaking. So we'll back off from that. I'll even back off from "reliable evidence", because you can't give that, either.

I can, but I prefer to motivate people to do objective research. If they show that they have at least tried, then I will take them seriously. I only go into more detail when talking to someone I take seriously.

In other words, you make plain old assertions and do not give an evidence at all, deferring to hide behind an altruistic goal of "motivating" people? LMAO.

The trouble is: you haven't given ANY sort of evidence. Nothing at all. Yet in order for you to have a chance at being correct, everything must fall into place perfectly for you. The apostle Paul could have NEVER met anyone who actually knew Jesus, and I'm still just fine. That's very unlikely, but I guess it's possible. If he ever did, however, then you're wrong. If the apostle Matthew actually wrote Matthew, then you're wrong. If Tacitus based his writings on anything other than common pro-Christian gossip, then you're wrong. If the author of James was actually James the Just, then you're wrong. Surely you have enough sense to realize that the odds are greatly against you.

Only if you don't know what objective research is. The Gospels were all written anonymously, so saying "Matthew wrote Matthew" means nothing. The name was assigned to the writing later. Saying a specific James wrote James is just an assertion.

Then we'll leave it anonymous and just say it was a James who was the Lord's brother. How's that?

Want to know what, I will give you some half-a**ed links if you want. If you want me to provide some good quality links, then actually start researching this objectively. Show me that you are serious. Then I will actually take you seriously.
http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...
http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com...

Sir, I've already seen them. I pay no attention to such "reasons" as "Well, Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem, so I better date the book after the fall." That's the very pinnacle of circularity.

Did you bother to tell us how much money John might have had on him at a given time? After all, you informed us that John couldn't have paid a scribe. That's your assertion - not mine. I think it more likely that at some point John might have had enough cash to actually pay a scribe. Occam's Razor, again. It is also possible that a scribe took dictation from John for free. In other words, your "reason" - or one of them - that the book of John was not penned by John is essentially worthless.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

... and that's exactly what you are doing when it is beneficial for you to do so.

"Why not talk about the evidence?"

Because thus far you haven't, really.

You have decided that the book of John was just written in Greek unbefitting of a poor Hebrew fisherman.

(1) This presupposes that with advancing years, John could not have possibly become very fluent in Greek
(2) This presupposes that John never had the money to pay an amanuensis.
(3) This presupposes that an amanuensis could not have taken dictation from John for free.

So there's your evidence, for what it is worth. If that's the best you've got, we'll have to call that "no evidence at all".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:44:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:22:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:06:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:52:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Wow... Someone here does not know anything about the Historical-Critical method. You also don't understand what Occam's Razor is, or how important it is when talking about history.

I'm afraid that I fully understand both of them, and in the case of the former, I pay but little attention to it. It is one tool of many. You seem to play 100% of your argument (if you want to call it that) on one methodology.

It is the method used by the majority of Historians and Scholars. Sorry if I like consistency in my results.

No, it's not. The majority of Biblical scholars do not employ the Historical-Critical methodology to the exclusion of all others.

Did I say Biblical Scholars? No, I said Scholars and Historians. Biblical Scholars seem not to like using it for some reason.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

I've already seen it. And no, I did not go to "some Christian website". I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position. It is highly presumptuous at best. That's why I asked you to give it - or give what you felt was the best arguments. You didn't give any.

You need to learn to do your own research.

Do my own research? Allow me to repeat myself: I've already seen it .... I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position."

You need to do your own research, and let me add, OBJECTIVELY.

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

"Historically questionable" does not equate with "not evidence" in the first place. I gave self-explanatory evidence.

It does. It has to be reliable to be evidence. Also, what "self-explanatory evidence" did you provide?

It is self-explanatory that people, various people, made claims of seeing Jesus.

And there are various people who have made claims of seeing Zues, that they have seen Elvis alive, etc. Are those sources reliable? That is what the question is.

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.

By "prove", I mean give your best, most reliable evidence. Heck, I already know you can't "prove" anything, strictly speaking. So we'll back off from that. I'll even back off from "reliable evidence", because you can't give that, either.

I can, but I prefer to motivate people to do objective research. If they show that they have at least tried, then I will take them seriously. I only go into more detail when talking to someone I take seriously.

In other words, you make plain old assertions and do not give an evidence at all, deferring to hide behind an altruistic goal of "motivating" people? LMAO.

I told you exactly what the evidence was, but I did not give all the reasoning. Why? Why should I take you seriously if you don't look any of it up objectively?

The trouble is: you haven't given ANY sort of evidence. Nothing at all. Yet in order for you to have a chance at being correct, everything must fall into place perfectly for you. The apostle Paul could have NEVER met anyone who actually knew Jesus, and I'm still just fine. That's very unlikely, but I guess it's possible. If he ever did, however, then you're wrong. If the apostle Matthew actually wrote Matthew, then you're wrong. If Tacitus based his writings on anything other than common pro-Christian gossip, then you're wrong. If the author of James was actually James the Just, then you're wrong. Surely you have enough sense to realize that the odds are greatly against you.

Only if you don't know what objective research is. The Gospels were all written anonymously, so saying "Matthew wrote Matthew" means nothing. The name was assigned to the writing later. Saying a specific James wrote James is just an assertion.

Then we'll leave it anonymous and just say it was a James who was the Lord's brother. How's that?

And which Lord is it? There are many Lords that it could have been, and we even have records of some having a brother named James. It still does not answer if it is reliable information or not.

Want to know what, I will give you some half-a**ed links if you want. If you want me to provide some good quality links, then actually start researching this objectively. Show me that you are serious. Then I will actually take you seriously.
http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...
http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com...

Sir, I've already seen them. I pay no attention to such "reasons" as "Well, Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem, so I better date the book after the fall." That's the very pinnacle of circularity.

So, you throw out Occam's Razor, ignore evidence that goes against your view, etc. That is a very good example of bigotry.

Did you bother to tell us how much money John might have had on him at a given time? After all, you informed us that John couldn't have paid a scribe. That's your assertion - not mine. I think it more likely that at some point John might have had enough cash to actually pay a scribe. Occam's Razor, again. It is also possible that a scribe took dictation from John for free. In other words, your "reason" - or one of them - that the book of John was not penned by John is essentially worthless.

How is it worthless? John was born a peasant, so he did not inherit any money. If the Gospel of John is accurate, then it appears that John did not do much that would allow him to make money. We can also see, when looking at historical documents of the time, that it is EXTREMELY hard for a peasant to get the kind of money required to hire a scribe (making money was not easy). That leaves us with, a scribe did it for free or that the Gospel has nothing to do with John. Looking at the estimated cost of writing a book at the time, it is highly unlikely that a scribe would do it for free. Possible, but unlikely. Occam's Razor fits that it has nothing to do with John.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:46:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:26:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

... and that's exactly what you are doing when it is beneficial for you to do so.

Really? Did I mention the consensus in this thread?

"Why not talk about the evidence?"

Because thus far you haven't, really.

I have talked about some of the evidence, you can look it up objectively if you want. But looking at your previous comments, I will assume you simply love to live in ignorance.

You have decided that the book of John was just written in Greek unbefitting of a poor Hebrew fisherman.

No, evidence suggests that. I am simply agreeing with the evidence.

(1) This presupposes that with advancing years, John could not have possibly become very fluent in Greek

How would he have? Do you know how hard it would be?

(2) This presupposes that John never had the money to pay an amanuensis.

How would he get the money?

(3) This presupposes that an amanuensis could not have taken dictation from John for free.

Why would one do that?

So there's your evidence, for what it is worth. If that's the best you've got, we'll have to call that "no evidence at all".

You simply ignore the historical methods, all of which (as far as I have found) use Occam's Razor.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:22:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:06:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:52:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:38:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:


No, it's not. The majority of Biblical scholars do not employ the Historical-Critical methodology to the exclusion of all others.

Did I say Biblical Scholars? No, I said Scholars and Historians. Biblical Scholars seem not to like using it for some reason.

Even secular "scholars and historians" do not employ it in the same way that atheist/agnostics do when discussing the Bible. It is unheard of. It is merely one tool ... ONE ... that is utilized in the study of ancient literature. But to hear atheists/agnostic on here tell it, well, it's THE tool - to the exclusion of all others.

I have a feeling you just found some Christian website that had information, and are believing it blindly. I gave you some of the basic information, not all of it. Why? What is the purpose of giving it all? You can EASILY do the research yourself. I told you what to look for as well.

I've already seen it. And no, I did not go to "some Christian website". I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position. It is highly presumptuous at best. That's why I asked you to give it - or give what you felt was the best arguments. You didn't give any.

You need to learn to do your own research.

Do my own research? Allow me to repeat myself: I've already seen it .... I've seen the so-called "evidence" in favor of your position."

You need to do your own research, and let me add, OBJECTIVELY.

Well, so do you. What does that prove?

Besides, you also have to provide evidence that that anything you listed is accurate as well. If you cannot, it means it is historically questionable (which means it is not evidence).

"Historically questionable" does not equate with "not evidence" in the first place. I gave self-explanatory evidence.

It does. It has to be reliable to be evidence. Also, what "self-explanatory evidence" did you provide?

It is self-explanatory that people, various people, made claims of seeing Jesus.

And there are various people who have made claims of seeing Zues, that they have seen Elvis alive, etc. Are those sources reliable? That is what the question is.

Name them, and cite the books that they wrote. I'd like to see them. I'm not talking about self-admitted fictional accounts. I mean the real thing.

I also find it hilarious that you are using the word "prove". Shows how little you understand about history, science, etc. I think you are either a troll, or the Christian version of Fatihah.



I can, but I prefer to motivate people to do objective research. If they show that they have at least tried, then I will take them seriously. I only go into more detail when talking to someone I take seriously.

In other words, you make plain old assertions and do not give an evidence at all, deferring to hide behind an altruistic goal of "motivating" people? LMAO.

I told you exactly what the evidence was, but I did not give all the reasoning. Why? Why should I take you seriously if you don't look any of it up objectively?

For the 4th time, I've already seen it. Having finally realized that, you think that I didn't look at it "objectively". And what's your evidence of that? Well, I don't agree with you; hence, I must have looked at it through extremely biased glasses, eh?



Only if you don't know what objective research is. The Gospels were all written anonymously, so saying "Matthew wrote Matthew" means nothing. The name was assigned to the writing later. Saying a specific James wrote James is just an assertion.

Then we'll leave it anonymous and just say it was a James who was the Lord's brother. How's that?

And which Lord is it? There are many Lords that it could have been, and we even have records of some having a brother named James. It still does not answer if it is reliable information or not.

Really? Could you name for us the people identified as "Lord" in a religious sense in the NT?

What we are seeing here is a mere quibble, and a poor one at that. Not satisfied with the word Lord in the NT, you seek to apply it to others.

Want to know what, I will give you some half-a**ed links if you want. If you want me to provide some good quality links, then actually start researching this objectively. Show me that you are serious. Then I will actually take you seriously.
http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...
http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com...

Sir, I've already seen them. I pay no attention to such "reasons" as "Well, Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem, so I better date the book after the fall." That's the very pinnacle of circularity.

So, you throw out Occam's Razor, ignore evidence that goes against your view, etc. That is a very good example of bigotry.

What evidence? You haven't presented any.

As far as Occam's Razor, all you are saying is that you do not even deny it. "Well, Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem, so I better date the book after the fall" is precisely your reasoning. All else is incidental. Were those prophesies not in the NT, no atheist would be trying to move the dates up.

Did you bother to tell us how much money John might have had on him at a given time? After all, you informed us that John couldn't have paid a scribe. That's your assertion - not mine. I think it more likely that at some point John might have had enough cash to actually pay a scribe. In other words, your "reason" - or one of them - that the book of John was not penned by John is essentially worthless.

How is it worthless? John was born a peasant, so he did not inherit any money. If the Gospel of John is accurate, then it appears that John did not do much that would allow him to make money. We can also see, when looking at historical documents of the time, that it is EXTREMELY hard for a peasant to get the kind of money required to hire a scribe (making money was not easy). That leaves us with, a scribe did it for free or that the Gospel has nothing to do with John. Looking at the estimated cost of writing a book at the time, it is highly unlikely that a scribe would do it for free. Possible, but unlikely. Occam's Razor fits that it has nothing to do with John.

Again, you'll have to prove that John was born into abject poverty. And you'll have to prove that he stayed there, even while earning a living as a fisherman. You know, many fishermen in the first century weren't exactly poor, especially those who owned boats and nets.

Could you refer me to the "historical documents" which "document" that a 1st-century fisherman who owned a boat, nets, and probably his own home (based upon the account of probably caring for Mary after the crucifixion) was most likely in poverty?

I think we'll find, once again, that there's quite a bit of assumption coupled with rhetoric. I said, "I think it more likely that at some point John might have had enough cash to pay a scribe." Do you notice that you've flippantly dismissed the possibility? It's out the window. Not possible. Or very unlikely, in your opinion. That's the kind of careless handling of facts that I'm talking about.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:15:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:46:33 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:26:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

... and that's exactly what you are doing when it is beneficial for you to do so.

Really? Did I mention the consensus in this thread?

Indeed you did. "It is the method used by the majority of Historians and Scholars. Sorry if I like consistency in my results."

You could have more accurately said, "It is A method used by the majority ... " Anyway, there is no difference between "consensus" and "used by the majority".

"Why not talk about the evidence?"

Because thus far you haven't, really.

I have talked about some of the evidence, you can look it up objectively if you want. But looking at your previous comments, I will assume you simply love to live in ignorance.

LOL Apparently so. I keep answering your posts.

You have decided that the book of John was just written in Greek unbefitting of a poor Hebrew fisherman.

No, evidence suggests that. I am simply agreeing with the evidence.

(1) This presupposes that with advancing years, John could not have possibly become very fluent in Greek

How would he have? Do you know how hard it would be?

Apparently you are unaware that many people were bilingual back then.

(2) This presupposes that John never had the money to pay an amanuensis.

How would he get the money?

By working at his vocation. I repeat, "This presupposes that John never had the money to pay an amanuensis."

(3) This presupposes that an amanuensis could not have taken dictation from John for free.

Why would one do that?

Perhaps because there were many Greek-speaking Christians who had an interest in doing so.

So there's your evidence, for what it is worth. If that's the best you've got, we'll have to call that "no evidence at all".

You simply ignore the historical methods, all of which (as far as I have found) use Occam's Razor.

I gave you several objections, very believable and plausible objections, to your little theory.

Now it is up to you to prove that a fisherman who probably owned his own boat, nets, and home never had enough money on him to pay a scribe.

"And going on from thence he saw two other brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them." (Matt 4: 21)

From that we conclude that most likely both James, John, and their father Zebedee were fishermen in the Sea of Galilee and that they owned their own nets. Most likely they owned their own boat. Most likely, a family of fishermen was not in poverty in the first place.

Do you not see how you battle the odds in order to foster your assumptions. You'll fight to the bitter end that the Apostle John never had enough money to pay a scribe, when what little evidence there is points to the opposite.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 2:15:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:46:33 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:26:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:43:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:28:18 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
And this thread is done.

And why is that? I have done this research for years now. I looked through the forums and it looks like Installgentoo didn't start until this year. Everyone else just says, "consensus this", "consensus that".

... and that's exactly what you are doing when it is beneficial for you to do so.

Really? Did I mention the consensus in this thread?

Indeed you did. "It is the method used by the majority of Historians and Scholars. Sorry if I like consistency in my results."

You could have more accurately said, "It is A method used by the majority ... " Anyway, there is no difference between "consensus" and "used by the majority".

Yes, there is a difference. It is like saying that using the scientific method is flawed. It is just the method that has shown the most reliable results.

I also looked at your previous comments on this topic, and I have seen that you don't care about what anyone says. On pretty much every topic. You act like you are infallible, and I don't take people seriously that are that bigoted.

Simply observing how you tackle every argument on this site shows that you do not have an open mind. It is pointless to talk to you when you disagree. You won't listen to any evidence, you have already made your mind up.

I will add you to my list of people that I ignore due to them being incompetent.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 8:22:47 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
To name just a few great historians who wrote about Jesus before any religion could make him up we have people like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

What is atheists problem with this historical evidence in recounting Jesus?

You forgot Lucian. But mostly, you forgot to mention that - aside from the fact that one of the Josephus references, and the one from Suetonius are thought to be forgeries - all five of those historians lived after the time of Jesus, none of them claim any confirmation of the statements they made, and each and every one was pure hearsay. They're no different than a person today stating that they've heard that Zeus is the god of Lightning, and lived on Mount Olympus.

They're the absolute weakest form of evidence available, of such little strength that they would not be allowed in court.

AND... you were told that this is all you would find. If you want to the full gamut of evidence for Jesus, try tossing in Galatians 1:19. But then remember that all Christians call other male Christians "brother".

... and there you have it. Essentially every historical scrap of evidence for Jesus that exists; two forgeries, 4-mere hearsay references, and the confirmation that Christians call other Christians "brother" or "sister".

And you call that "overwhelming"? It's about as underwhelming as evidence gets. And if that's sufficient to consider Jesus to be a historical character, then we can place him right beside Zeus as a historical character. And from that standing, we can then begin to look at the evidence (missing evidence), AGAINST the existence of a historical Jesus. In the end, he's a rumor... a myth... a legendary fable.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire