Total Posts:403|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist Fables Pt 1: Non-historicity of Jesus

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

You know those "mainstream historians" are also pretty sure some of the documents you have quoted are forgeries, right? But anyway, does any of those documents ever mention Jesus?. Yes there's references to christians, and yes there's references to unnamed christian leaders, and yes there's EVEN one single reference to someone called "Chrestus", and it is from a person that could be simply talking about something he heard, not something he knows for sure.

So... Yeah. You really have a big amount of evidence! Woah! Impossible to disprove!
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:37:13 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

You know those "mainstream historians" are also pretty sure some of the documents you have quoted are forgeries, right? But anyway, does any of those documents ever mention Jesus?. Yes there's references to christians, and yes there's references to unnamed christian leaders, and yes there's EVEN one single reference to someone called "Chrestus", and it is from a person that could be simply talking about something he heard, not something he knows for sure.

So... Yeah. You really have a big amount of evidence! Woah! Impossible to disprove!

The Thallus fragment makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus, the rest make reference to "Christus" or "Chrestus" (the former term being a romanization of the word "Christus".
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gentorev
Posts: 2,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 5:28:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christianity appears to have divorced Jesus from the world of reality, and chooses to ignore the historical life and times in which he was born and raised. They seem to be more interested in mysteries rather than in reality.

Although a practicing Jew, Herod was an Arab, the son of an Edomite, named Antipater and whose mother was the daughter of a nobleman from Petra the capital of the rising Nabataean Kingdom. In 63 BC, Antipater sided with Rome when Pompey invaded Palestine and in 47 BC Julius Caesar whose mistress Cleopatra was to later bear to him a son "Caesarion," appointed Antipater procurator of Judea and bestowed Roman citizenship upon him, an honour that was inherited by the Macedonian"s descendant, "Herod the Great" and his sons.

At the age of 16, Herod met his lifelong friend Mark Antony of Macedonia, to who, in the year of 40 BC, on the 25TH December (An important date to remember) Cleopatra bore the twins whose names are Cleopatra Selene (Moon) and Alexander Helios (Sun) or Heli.

In 37 BC, the Roman senate nominated Herod as the King of Judea, a position he held for 32 years. Even after the defeat by Octavian, (who was to be known as the Emperor Augustus,) over his good friend Mark Antony at Actium (A promontory and ancient town of Macedonia) in 31 BC in their struggle for the throne of the assassinated Julius Caesar, Octavian who knew of Herod"s love and earlier support for his now deceased friend, "Mark Antony," never the less knew that Herod was the one who would best rule Palestine as he himself would want it to be ruled, and Herod and Augustus were to later become friends.

During his reign, Herod the Great built many massive fortresses and splendid cities, amphitheatres, and hippodromes for the Grecian games inaugurated in honour of Augustus, but his most grandiose creation was the Temple in Jerusalem. Not only did he patronize the Olympic games, as did his sons, he was to become the president of those games, which, after his death continued to enjoy the support of his sons, Archelaus, Antipas, and their brother Philip from Bethsaida who was very popular and accessible to the Greeks. It was to Philip of Bethsaida that the Greeks came, when seeking an audience with Jesus.

Tetrarch, in Greek, means "Ruler of a quarter," Nathanael who was introduced to Jesus by Phillip, lived in the town of Cana where Jesus performed his first miracle at the insistence of his mother, who it would appear had some hand in the organization of the wedding. Herod"s descendants were not only the temporal rulers, but also the spiritual rulers of Palestine or parts thereof during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus.

In his youth, Herod had married a woman named Doris, the mother of his first born son "Antipater" who he later disinherited and killed.

Because he was of Idumaean/Hittite/Macedonian descent, and hated by the Jews, he attempted to appease them by marrying a Jewess, Mariamne a descendant of the Maccabees family of Jewish patriots, whom he actually loved. Mariamne, who had insisted that her brother be appointed high priest, was the daughter of Salome=Alexandra, an heir from the old ruling Hasmonaean line and she is not to be confused with the niece of Herod Antipas, whose name is THOUGHT to have been "Salome" the daughter of Herodias the wife of Philip the first, (Although many scholars today, are of the firm opinion that there was no Philip1, and Philip2, but only Philip the son of Herod who ruled from Bethsaida) and who was the half brother to Herod Antipas.

With the support of the Queen of Egypt "Cleopatra", a close friend of the Jewess Salome = Alexandra, (The should have been queen) of the Hasmonaean line which was defeated by Pompey, Salome attempted to have Herod ousted in favour of her grandsons, finally "Herod the Great," had Mariamne, her brother and her two sons, plus her mother and grandfather all killed, although one of Mariamne"s grandsons, "Herod Agrippa 1" survived to rule in Palestine from about the late 41 AD to 44 AD.

According to the Encyclopedia Britt, "Philip of Bethdaida, the son of "Herod the Great" was born in 20 BC of a young Jewess by the name of "Cleopatra" (A Macedonian name) not Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt who in 40 BC, gave birth to her twins Cleopatra Selena and Alexandra Helios (Heli), the children of Mark Antony the Macedonian.

Cleopatra Selena would have been about 20 years of age at the time of the birth of Philip who was about 13 years older than "Jesus" who was born around 7 or 6 BC as the grandson of Alexander Helios [Heli,] and the son of Mary from the tribe of Levi, whose aunty was Elizabeth, who were both of the daughters of Levi. to be continued.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 5:39:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gentorev continues.........Philip was given control of southern Lebanon and modern Syria, to the east of the Lake Galilee, and Philip was a model ruler of whom almost nothing is known except for the fact that he ruled (throughout the life of Jesus) the district in which Jesus spent much of his ministerial time and in which he worked most of his miracles. Matthew 11: 20-21, "The people in the towns where Jesus performed MOST of his MIGHTY MIRACLES," did not turn from their sins, so he reproached those towns on the eastern side of the lake, "How terrible it will be for you, Chorazin! How terrible for you too, Bethsaida etc."

It was outside the walls of "Bethsaida Julias" that had been rebuilt by Philip, that Jesus healed a blind man, See Mark 8: 22-26. It was in Caesarea Philippi, which according to Luke in Acts 16: 12; was the chief city in that part of Macedonia, a city rebuilt by Philip, (PHILIP, Is a Macedonian name) that Jesus asked his disciples "who people were saying he was." It was in this district that Philip from Bethsaida played a part in the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, and in medieval art Philips symbol was loaves, See John 6: 1-7 where Jesus puts Philip to the test.

The last Testament of Herod the Great which was approved by Augustus, provided that Archelaus receive ruler ship of Judea, with Philip and Antipas ruling two of the remaining tetrarch"s.

When returning from Egypt with his wife Mary and her child Jesus after the death of Herod the Great, Joseph wanted to live in the land of Judaea rather than to return to their home in Nazareth near Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today, is called "Beithlahm," and is only a few kilometres from Sepphorus, which towns suffered extensive damage in the great riots of 4BC, which was the same year in which Herod died after a failed suicide attempt, (Which suicide I believe,) was at the command of Caesar, because of the riots that he caused, in the territory around Bethlehem/Beitlahm, Nazareth and Sepphorus, in which so many families were murdered and others removed to Rome where they were sold as slaves. Those riots occurred immediately after the parents of the young, "one to two" year old Jesus were warned to flee from their home in Nazareth into Egypt.

The reason why Joseph, who, after the death of Herod the Great, wanted to live in Judea and yet was afraid to live there, was because Herod"s son, the cruel, depraved, and despised Herod Archelaus was ruling there. Archelaus was later recalled to Rome and banished because he had antagonized the entire population of Judea and Samaria.

Judea then became a Roman province and the Herod who was in Jerusalem at the time of Passover when Jesus was being tried by Pontius Pilate, was Herod Antipas who ruled from Sepphorus and Jericho, and was the Herod who had John the Baptist beheaded at the request of Herodias the wife of Philip and mother of Philip"s daughter. To be continued.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 5:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gentorev continues.........In 34 AD, shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Philip"s reign came to an abrupt end and in 36 AD, Herod Agrippa 1 the grandson of Herod the Great and nephew of Philip and Antipas, received the tetrarch of the Macedonian district of Batanaera and Trachonitis to the east of the sea of Galilee, formerly held by his uncle Philip. When Herod Antipas and Herodias tried to discredit Agrippa 1, who was in favour with the Emperor Caligula, they themselves were banished, Antipas" tetrarch passing on to Agrippa 1 in AD 39. Then in 41 AD and after the assassination of Caligula, Agrippa"s support for Claudius was rewarded with the government of Judea, which had, since the banishment of Herod Archelaus, been ruled by Roman procurators for about 30 years. It was this Herod who enjoyed the support and adoration of the Jewish authorities, who did all in his power to crush the infant Jewish Apostolic Church.

It was he who executed James, the son Zebedee whose mother, is believed to have been named Salome, a close friend of Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod"s minister of finances and one of the women who supported Jesus using their own resources. And Agrippa would have killed Peter also, had he not have escaped from prison. Agrippa"s sudden death in 44 AD is recorded in Acts 12: 21-23.

Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Jordan in the old Macedonian territory where it enters Lake Galilee, was the birth place of Peter and his brother Andrew, who was a close friend of Philip, who with Andrew, were the two men to who John the Baptist pointed out his cousin Jesus as the one whom the light of man (The spirit that is born of the body of mankind---"The Son of Man") had chosen as the man through who he would reveal himself to the world; the man that he had promised Moses that he would in the future raise up from among the Israelites, the one who would come in the name of the Lord "Who I Am" and speak only that which he was commanded to say by "Who I Am" the Most High in the creation.

Jesus was born a human being of two human parents as are all the descendants of Adam. At his baptism, he was filled with the spirit of our Lord (The lesser Jahweh) as the heavenly voice was heard to say "You are my son in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have begotten you.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:37:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

The passing mention in a handful of histories does NOTHING to evidence the exorbitant claims made about this character in the NT. Further, the fact that SOMEONE by that name might have existed does not automatically corroborate any of the divinity, miracles, or resurrection stories, since the resurrection is absent in nearly all of them (save one). Moreover, one of the most "valuable" often used by christians is also widely believed to have been altered, favorably, by christians...

Addendum:

You forgot to mention Phlegon (80-140AD). Noted, this is even weaker than all of the rest of your entries, but he lives among your "mentions," for the "messiah."

You also forgot to mention Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.). He only spoke of christians in a derisive manner, but hey... he mentioned them...

Finally, you forgot Celsus (175AD). Given the nature of his unabashed derision toward the whole story, it's not hard to figure out why you did so.

Of all the historical mentions you cite, outside of the bible, it is also important to note that not ONE of these historians was even BORN until more than two decades after the crucifixion/resurrection tale... That's plenty of time for the rumor mill to grind out a grand tale that is no more likely to have happened than the flood, the sun having "stood still" for 24 hours, or Jonah surviving for three days in methane gas and digestive juices...

Congrats. You have your self convinced. It's going to be like ice skating uphill to convince anyone rational, though...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:50:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:54:39 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:37:13 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

You know those "mainstream historians" are also pretty sure some of the documents you have quoted are forgeries, right? But anyway, does any of those documents ever mention Jesus?. Yes there's references to christians, and yes there's references to unnamed christian leaders, and yes there's EVEN one single reference to someone called "Chrestus", and it is from a person that could be simply talking about something he heard, not something he knows for sure.

So... Yeah. You really have a big amount of evidence! Woah! Impossible to disprove!

The Thallus fragment makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus, the rest make reference to "Christus" or "Chrestus" (the former term being a romanization of the word "Christus".

"FRAGMENT"

rofl!
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:47:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:54:39 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:37:13 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

You know those "mainstream historians" are also pretty sure some of the documents you have quoted are forgeries, right? But anyway, does any of those documents ever mention Jesus?. Yes there's references to christians, and yes there's references to unnamed christian leaders, and yes there's EVEN one single reference to someone called "Chrestus", and it is from a person that could be simply talking about something he heard, not something he knows for sure.

So... Yeah. You really have a big amount of evidence! Woah! Impossible to disprove!

The Thallus fragment makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus, the rest make reference to "Christus" or "Chrestus" (the former term being a romanization of the word "Christus".

As far as I know, Thallus doesn't make any mention to Jesus but to a supposed eclipse that, according to astronomers, could not happen during the crucifixion. So no, still no reference to Jesus whatsoever.

Is there any reference to christian leaders? Of course. Is there even some mentions of some people that THINK or HEARD there's someone called Chrestus among the christians? Probably, yes. But is there any mention of Jesus? No. And of some christian leader with magical powers? Absolutely not.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:07:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3 which Theophilus, a Christian Bishop of Antioch circa 175-180 AD, wrote to a learned pagan trying to persuade him to convert to Christianity (as he had):

http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus). Jesus is a myth.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:11:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:07:53 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3 which Theophilus, a Christian Bishop of Antioch circa 175-180 AD, wrote to a learned pagan trying to persuade him to convert to Christianity (as he had):

http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus). Jesus is a myth.

Profound evidence. It's amazing how a lie can affect so much.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

As I said, I don't reject a historical Jesus, but if you are trying to show evidence then you should cite your sources.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:07:53 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3 which Theophilus, a Christian Bishop of Antioch circa 175-180 AD, wrote to a learned pagan trying to persuade him to convert to Christianity (as he had):

http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus). Jesus is a myth.

So one letter written a hundred years after these other sources not mentioning Jesus makes Him a myth? You truly are a special needs case, aren't you?

God bless you, regardless of your ridiculously stupid beliefs :)
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:16:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:07:53 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3 which Theophilus, a Christian Bishop of Antioch circa 175-180 AD, wrote to a learned pagan trying to persuade him to convert to Christianity (as he had):

http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus). Jesus is a myth.

So one letter written a hundred years after these other sources not mentioning Jesus makes Him a myth? You truly are a special needs case, aren't you?

God bless you, regardless of your ridiculously stupid beliefs :)

So you start a thread pretending you are interested in discussion and evidence, and then you immediately start insulting the responders. You obviously haven't had time to read any of the three letters. Your pretence at academic investigstion is noted.

Here's some homework for you. In one of the letters, Theophilus explains how Christians got their name. What do you think the answer is?
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:11:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:07:53 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3 which Theophilus, a Christian Bishop of Antioch circa 175-180 AD, wrote to a learned pagan trying to persuade him to convert to Christianity (as he had):

http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.newadvent.org......

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus). Jesus is a myth.

Profound evidence. It's amazing how a lie can affect so much.

Christianity is all lies and forgeries and intellectual theft from Judaism and Greek philosophers (not an exclusive list). It's a dog's breakfast. How anyone could take it seriously is beyond me.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 3:25:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.

Are you not capable of doing your own research?
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 3:28:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:13:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

As I said, I don't reject a historical Jesus, but if you are trying to show evidence then you should cite your sources.

Not trying to show anything (I've no reason to) all I'm saying is that he has mentioning in the two texts.

As I don't believe in Jesus as Messiah--I have no other reason to provide evidence.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 4:18:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 3:25:45 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.

Are you not capable of doing your own research?

To the contrary, I've done the research and am calling you a liar since no such documentation exists.
You can prove me wrong by simply producing these documents you claim exist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 4:21:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

Produce those passages that refer to a jesus.
There's a good fella.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 4:36:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:13:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

As I said, I don't reject a historical Jesus, but if you are trying to show evidence then you should cite your sources.

The oldest complete manuscript of the Talmud is from the 13th century. Useless as evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Sanhedrin section has a few unrelated references to a "Yeshu", such as one who was a sorcerer with five disciples. Christians (as they do) jumped to the conclusion that these were about their Jesus and took offence. Cue censorship, banning, burning, destruction and persecution of Jews by the Christian church. It's now almost impossible to know what the Talmud may originally have looked like. There is nothing to see here.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 7:23:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 4:18:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/22/2014 3:25:45 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.

Are you not capable of doing your own research?

To the contrary, I've done the research and am calling you a liar since no such documentation exists.
You can prove me wrong by simply producing these documents you claim exist.

In that case you must be pretty poor at research! I suggest you improve in that department before labelling people a "liar" and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.

San. Bab Talmud 43a is the passage that makes reference to him. Research skills into account, I'll actually post the passage (and provide a link) for you:

"On the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged . For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf". But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover--Ulla retorted, "Do you suppose that one for shim a defence could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu, however, it was difficult, for he was connected to royalty (or well-connected)."

Maybe you should take back that "liar" claim.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 7:26:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 7:23:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/22/2014 4:18:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/22/2014 3:25:45 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.

Are you not capable of doing your own research?

To the contrary, I've done the research and am calling you a liar since no such documentation exists.
You can prove me wrong by simply producing these documents you claim exist.

In that case you must be pretty poor at research! I suggest you improve in that department before labelling people a "liar" and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.

San. Bab Talmud 43a is the passage that makes reference to him. Research skills into account, I'll actually post the passage (and provide a link) for you:

"On the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged . For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf". But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover--Ulla retorted, "Do you suppose that one for shim a defence could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu, however, it was difficult, for he was connected to royalty (or well-connected)."

Maybe you should take back that "liar" claim.

MISHNAH [6:1 cont.]. " If then they find him innocent, they discharge him; but if not, he goes forth to be stoned. And a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offence, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favour, let him and state it."

http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 7:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 7:23:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/22/2014 4:18:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/22/2014 3:25:45 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 7:36:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

Citations needed.

Are you not capable of doing your own research?

To the contrary, I've done the research and am calling you a liar since no such documentation exists.
You can prove me wrong by simply producing these documents you claim exist.

In that case you must be pretty poor at research! I suggest you improve in that department before labelling people a "liar" and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.

San. Bab Talmud 43a is the passage that makes reference to him. Research skills into account, I'll actually post the passage (and provide a link) for you:

"On the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged . For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf". But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover--Ulla retorted, "Do you suppose that one for shim a defence could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu, however, it was difficult, for he was connected to royalty (or well-connected)."

Maybe you should take back that "liar" claim.

Not just yet.

This yeshu was sentenced to be stoned to death and it was proclaimed for forty days before his arrest and eventually he was hanged.
Are you claiming that this is the jesus of the bible who was welcomed by multitudes into Jerusalem a couple of days before his execution by crucifixion?
Are you serious? If his name was Methuselah would you present the same meaningless tripe?

That passage obviously has nothing to do with the jesus of the bible.
So yes you are a liar, or at least the simpletons you listen to are.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 8:26:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 4:36:57 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:13:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:20:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:47:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:10:21 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:48:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:46:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:08:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
Often times, atheists will scoff at people who believe differently to them that their favorite religious figure is a myth. Usually the idea that the person was a myth involves their engaging in pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about the historical character they attack. Often, they go after Jesus.

It's important to realize that none of the ideas of people who avocate "Christ mythicism" are the opinion of mainstream historians (this will become a fact which is more relevant later on in this part 1 of the atheist delusion series). Beyond "truther" circles, the existence of Jesus is simply not an issue. Jesus' life is referenced in as many different contemporaneous documents to the one documenting his life (the New Testament), as there are contemporaneous documents documenting the emperor Tiberius' life. Don't believe me? Tiberus is mentioned in about seven different places by five seperate historians in Rome at that time. Jesus is also mentioned seven times:

- twice in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"
- once in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' "The eleven caesers"
- once in Mara Bar Serapions letters
- once by Thallus' scattered writings on Rome
- once in Cornellius Tacitus' "Annals"
- once in Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan

So in order to discount Jesus atheists need to disprove all these sources on Jesus. Yet not one successful attack on them has been mounted. The vast majority of Josephus scholars believe both the Testimonium Flavianum and other sources to mention Jesus. Just google and look up the wikipedia pages where you will find multiple experts who say that the passages are genuine in the references.

So, yeah, if you want to be on the side of pseudo-academics, become an atheist and distort history with your fables today!

First, being an atheist does not require a rejection of historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus probably existed, but not because of the "contemporaneous documents" you have listed above. None of the documents are contemporary to Jesus, as EVERY one of the writers were born AFTER Jesus. Therefore, the information they had was not their own.

Secondly, even if atheists agree historical Jesus probably existed, you have not addressed the real question: Was Jesus supernatural?

*born after Jesus died*

Born very shortly after Jesus died. That's still contemporaneous by the standards of ancient historical studies.

Arguably the most important person who may have ever existed, and we have not one dispassionate witness from his lifetime, in fact we might even be able to successfully argue we have not one direct eye-witness to his birth or death! As I said, I believe historical Jesus probably existed, but I have no idea how you can state with 100% certainty Jesus definitely existed. The evidence does not support that.

..and still no supernatural Jesus.

*Not* that I believe Jesus was divine--or that he was the Messiah for that matter. However, even ancient Sanhedrin documents and excerpts from the Talmud make reference to him as a historical individual.

And these sources, for obvious reasons, were biased against Christianity.

As I said, I don't reject a historical Jesus, but if you are trying to show evidence then you should cite your sources.

The oldest complete manuscript of the Talmud is from the 13th century. Useless as evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Sanhedrin section has a few unrelated references to a "Yeshu", such as one who was a sorcerer with five disciples. Christians (as they do) jumped to the conclusion that these were about their Jesus and took offence. Cue censorship, banning, burning, destruction and persecution of Jews by the Christian church. It's now almost impossible to know what the Talmud may originally have looked like. There is nothing to see here.

Thanks for the info.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten