Jesus was a fictional character
John P. Boatwright
>
> Jesus was a fictional character.
>
> The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
a number of other events of the time. There were also
witnesses that wrote of him.
You lose.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Eric Gill
God.net:
> David wrote:
>>
>> Jesus was a fictional character.
>>
>> The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
>
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time.
Josephus was born after the Jesus allegedly died, John.
You're so "special."
And it's interesting that "Jospehus" alludes to Jesus' twin dying instead
of him, like several of the Gnostic traditions claimed.
Hmmm- I seem to recall Josephus being an orthodox Jew, not a Christian
Gnostic.
I wonder just where those passages came from?
> There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.
Well, that's what the mythology claims.
Two witnesses, that is.
Maybe.
And exactly zero besides believers that witnessed the events such as the
earthquake and eclipse, despite how hard it would to cover them up.
Funny, that. Like most of your "special" ramblings.
> You lose.
Now, now, John- don't get all worked up. The nurse will be right along
with your meds and a change for your diaper.
Jesus Christ
> David wrote:
> >
> > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >
> > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
>
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time. There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.
Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the infants?
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark
----------------
Otho
"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > >
> > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
> >
> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>
> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
infants?
>
"There was no annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. There
was no star that shone in the sky to announce Jesus' birth. There were no
wise men who followed that star. There were no gifts of gold, frankincense,
or myrrh. There was no murder of innocent male babies by the wicked King
Herod. There was no tax enrollment ordered by Quirinius, the governor of
Syria, and thus no journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no
manger. There was no heavenly messenger who proclaimed the birth of this
Jesus to hillside shepherds, no angelic chorus that sang "Glory to God the
highest." There was no journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at age 12. All of
these are storytelling creations of the Jewish mind, seeking to explain in a
thoroughly Jewish way the experience that people had with the adult Jesus.
If it is history that we desire, then let me state that the overwhelming
probability is that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth of
Galilee. The whole Bethlehem tradition was quite clearly a much later
attempt to interpret Jesus as the heir of David and thus the anticipated
messianic figure who would arise out of the line of David, and whose
prophesied birthplace would be Bethlehem."
Jesus Christ
>
> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto
> > us:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > >
> > > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
> > >
> > > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> > > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >
> > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> infants?
> >
> He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
It questions the reliance on using Josephus. If Josephus is an accurate
historian, then Herod never ordered the slaughter and the bible is errant;
if Josephus isn't an accurate historian, then you can't entirely trust his
(already suspect) account on Jesus.
Michael Painter
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Xi2z8.1933$sh6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>
> "There was no annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. There
> was no star that shone in the sky to announce Jesus' birth. There were no
> wise men who followed that star. There were no gifts of gold,
frankincense,
> or myrrh. There was no murder of innocent male babies by the wicked King
> Herod. There was no tax enrollment ordered by Quirinius, the governor of
> Syria, and thus no journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no
> manger. There was no heavenly messenger who proclaimed the birth of this
> Jesus to hillside shepherds, no angelic chorus that sang "Glory to God the
> highest." There was no journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at age 12. All
of
> these are storytelling creations of the Jewish mind, seeking to explain in
a
> thoroughly Jewish way the experience that people had with the adult Jesus.
> If it is history that we desire, then let me state that the overwhelming
> probability is that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth of
> Galilee. The whole Bethlehem tradition was quite clearly a much later
> attempt to interpret Jesus as the heir of David and thus the anticipated
> messianic figure who would arise out of the line of David, and whose
> prophesied birthplace would be Bethlehem."
>
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/59/story_5924_2.html
>
is no evidence that anything called Nazareth existed at the time.
Otho
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AI2z8.56295$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
birth?
The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>
Mussi...@cxl.aa
>"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
>news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>>
>> > David wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
>> >
>> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
>> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>>
>> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> >infants?
>>
>He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>
slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
--
Of the three Popes, John the Twenty-third was the first
victim: he fled and was brought back a prisoner: the
most scandalous charges were suppressed: the Vicar of
Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy,
and incest. _Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire_, Gibbon
Otho
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> > > news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > > > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto
> > > > us:
> > > >
> > > > > David wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > > > > witnesses that wrote of him.
> > > >
> > > > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > > infants?
> > > >
> > > He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> > historian, then Herod never ordered the slaughter and the bible is
errant;
> > if Josephus isn't an accurate historian, then you can't entirely trust
his
> > (already suspect) account on Jesus.
> > --
> traitor and so did we. You couldn't even find the writings of Josephus.
Why
> this change of mind on the parts of Jews and Christians? It is certainly
not
> only because Masada has became a tourist attraction. We were told lies.
> Archeology is proving that Josephus is a reliable historical source.
>
> http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
>
The writings of Josephus about John the Baptist are never questioned.
Was John the Baptist beheaded? Most likely not.
Was Aretas beheaded? No.
Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.109-119
"About this time Aretas, the king of the Arabian city Petra, and Herod
Antipas had a quarrel. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas
[called Phasaelis], and had lived with her a great while. But when he was
once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by
the same mother (this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's
daughter). Here, he fell in love with Herodias, this other Herod's wife, who
was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the
Great. Antipas ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; when
she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and
come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this
marriage also was that he should divorce Aretas's daughter.
So Antipas made this agreement and returned home again. But his wife had
discovered the agreement he had made before he had been able to tell her
about it. She asked him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the
borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of her
intentions. So, Herod sent her thither, unaware that his wife had perceived
something.
Earlier, she had sent to Macherus, and all things necessary for her journey
were made already prepared for her by a general of Aretas's army.
Consequently, she soon arrived in Arabia, under the conduct of several
generals, who carried her from one to another successively. She met her
father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first
occasion of the enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with
him about their limits near Gamala.
So both sides raised armies, prepared for war, and sent their generals to
fight. When they joined battle, Herod's army was completely destroyed by the
treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were from the tetrarchy of
Philip, had joined Aretas's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to the
emperor Tiberius, who became very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, and
wrote to Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to make war upon him, and either
to take him alive and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him and send him
his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria.
Judaea and its neigbors
(click on thumbnail to see
full scale map)
Arabia Petraea is in
the southeast
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from
God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called
the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews
to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God.
For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be
acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some
sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for
granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.
Coin of Herod Antipas
(click on thumbnail to see
full scale picture)
Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his
words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses
might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they
seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him
to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and
not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him
repent of it when it would be too late.
Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper,
to Macherus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the
Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon
Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him."
>
>
>
>
Otho
Re: Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.109-119
http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/fj02.html
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:SH3z8.6857$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Otho
<Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
news:sN3z8.249002$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
> >
> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> >>
> >> > David wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >> >
> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >>
> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > >infants?
> >>
> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation between
Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
much.
>
> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
>
You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a meaning. "...
preposterous fabrication, politically and historically naive" ? I think you
are the one that is being preposterous, politically and historically naive.
Storytelling in the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the
Jewish mind, you should know that. Why should the authors of the New
Testament writings have used a different genre of literature? You read
biblical narratives and you conclude that those who wrote them were
"politically and historically naive". I don't buy that. I think they rather
were intelligent. I can't say that of you though. You should know better.
Biomes/Mark
Otho wrote:
I agree with you, but you must understand that readers of this newsgroup are
constantly bombarded by clueless people like boatwright and others, who
honestly beleive the bible is inerrant. For these people the bible is a
history book. Thus the approach you refer to has almost become default.
Mark
Dan Fake
>
> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
documents and theories abound as to the reasons
the documents were written and what the source
for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
as a result of the following ...
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---
Dan Fake
>
> Archeology is proving that Josephus is a reliable historical source.
Josephus is a reliable source in many areas but some of
the writings of Josephus have suffered from christian
interpolations, per the opinion of a substantial segment
of the scholarly community ...
As for scholarship of the first 4 centuries, in general:
Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scho-
lars have a vested interest in supporting religion (in
general) and in going along with religious tradition
(in general), varying widely in the methodologies by
which religious traditions are dealt with but, never-
theless, the disputation of Jesus as actually existing
would unsettle all faith, for all that's left is the big sky
daddy and Jesus is present/prominent in the christian
religion (2 billion strong) as well as being treated as
a prophet man by the religion of islam (over 1 billion
strong).
---
Review of "The Jesus Puzzle" (a book by Earl
Doherty) pertaining to areas pertinent to Josephus,
christian apologist Minucius Felix, and other
christian apologists
http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm
---
- - - begin excerpts - - -
... Considering that, repeatedly over the centuries, the
notorious passage in the writings of the Jewish histor-
ian Josephus, the "Testimonium Flavianum," basically
has been proved to be a "rank forgery," it is a pity that
Doherty needs to spend so much effort debunking it
once again, but he does it well and thoroughly.
Likewise he does away with the other "evidence" found
in Josephus, i.e., the passage about James, the "brother
of the Lord, called Christ."
Regarding the Testimonium Flavianum, or "TF," the
constant regurgitation by Christian apologists of this
spurious passage, as essentially the only non-biblical
"evidence" of the existence of the great wonderworker
Jesus Christ, shows how desperate is their plight.
In actuality, it takes little time for the trained and critical
eye to know that the Testimonium Flavianum is a Chris-
tian interpolation, i.e., a forgery.
In dissecting the Josephus passage, Doherty writes:
" . . . the startling fact is that during the first two
centuries when such a passage is claimed to have
existed in all manuscripts of the Antiquities of the
Jews, not a single Christian commentator refers to
it in any surviving work." (208)
The logical conclusion for this absence of reference to
the TF in the abundant writings of the Christian fathers
of the second and third centuries is that the TF was not
originally in Josephus but was likely forged in the fourth
century by Church historian Eusebius, who is the first
to mention it.
The apologist claim that the TF must be authentic because
there are no extant copies of Josephus without it, is sim-
plistic and specious. In the first place, up to the 16th cen-
tury there evidently was at least one copy of the Antiquities
that did not contain the TF, in the possession of one
Vossius. Secondly, the lack of extant copies without the
TF can be explained easily by the endless destruction of
texts by Church authorities over hundreds of years.
On pp. 220-221 of The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty springs a
sublime trap. First he leads the reader through a discus-
sion regarding a purported "lost reference" in Josephus,
as alleged by Church fathers Origen and Eusebius, sup-
posedly reflecting that the historian "believed that the
calamity of the Jewish War (66-70) and the fall of Jer-
usalem was visited upon the Jews by God because of
their murder of James the Just."
Next, Doherty states:
"Origen brings up the 'lost reference' to criticize
Josephus for not saying that it was because of the
death of Jesus, rather than of James, that God
visited upon the Jews the destruction of Jerusalem.
But more than half a century earlier, the Christian
Hegesippus had said the same thing. As preserved
in Eusebius, Hegesippus witnesses to a Christian
view of his time (mid-second century) that it was
indeed the death of James the Just which had
prompted God's punishment of the Jews."
"But," Doherty continues, "there is a very telling corollary
to this. Why did those earlier Christians not impute the
calamity to God's punishment for the death of Jesus, since
to the later Origen – as well as to us – this seemed obvious?
"The explanation is simple. The need to interpret
the destruction of Jerusalem would likely have
developed early, even before Hegesippus. At such
a time, an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion
had not yet been invented, or at least would not
have been widely disseminated beyond a few early
Gospel communities."
Proceeding to the second century Christian apologists, Do-
herty also reveals that the majority of them writing before
the year 180, such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Tatian,
do not speak of a historical Jesus. These three writers, for
example, refer to a disincarnate, non-historical "Son of
God" or "Logos."
Says Doherty:
". . . Theophilus never mentions Christ, or Jesus, at
all. He makes no reference to a founder-teacher; in-
stead, Christians have their doctrines and knowledge
of God through the Holy Spirit. . . .
". . . the names Jesus and Christ never appear in
Athenagoras. . . .
"In [Apology to the Greeks], Tatian uses neither
'Jesus' nor 'Christ,' nor even the name 'Christian.' . . .
"In fact, the apologists as a group profess a faith
which is nothing so much as a Logos religion. It is
in essence Platonism carried to its fullest religious
implications and wedded with Jewish theology and
ethics." (278-81)
Although Doherty is hesitant to date the gospels to this late a
period, Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to
the Year Two Thousand makes an essentially incontestable
case that the four canonical gospels were composed between
170 and 180, which would explain why none of these writers
refers to them prior to 180.
Doherty also unearths a "smoking gun" in the Christian apol-
ogist Minucius Felix's Octavius, likely written in the middle
of the second century. In addressing the untoward charges
against Christians, such as the killing of babies and worship
of the priest's genitals, Minucius fervently denies that the
Christians worship "a criminal and his cross." Felix also ridi-
cules the Pagan ideas of a god becoming incarnate and of a
god begetting a son. Says he:
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because
a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become
gods). . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if
such have ever been born?" (289)
Regarding Minucius's reaction to the charge of worshipping
a "crucified criminal," Doherty remarks:
"Those who will allow historical documents to say
what they seem to be saying will recognize that Minu-
cius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Chris-
tian denial of the historical Jesus.
"To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one
Christian who will have nothing to do with those, in
other circles of his religion, who profess worship of
a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the gover-
norship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have
reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and
condemnation." (290)
In establishing his thesis, Doherty also explains the need for
making Jesus a historical character: In the early Christian
communities, in which there was a "riotous diversity" of
doctrine, there were too many pipelines to the spiritual Jesus.
Thus, it became necessary to create one divine person to
say all the things that the "prophets" and brotherhood mem-
bers were espousing, the same role played by Yahweh in the
Old Testament.
An excellent effort that will certainly have an impact on main-
stream scholarship, The Jesus Puzzle provides a scientific
and convincing analysis of Christianity's formative centuries,
essentially proving that Jesus Christ started out as an allegor-
ical and mythical entity, carnalized and historicized during
the second century. ...
- - - end excerpts - - -
---
Updated links to "The Jesus Puzzle" website:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
www.jesuspuzzle.com
www.jesuspuzzle.org
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p.s. Further reference:
The Jesus Doubt File (022801)
http://danfake.home.att.net/disbelief/jesus_doubt_file.htm
"For consideration of the likelihood that Jesus
was a mythical creation -or- an overly ambitious
series of creative extrapolations pertaining to
a human who, if he even existed, had neither
divine nor extraordinary attributes anywhere
near those credited to him in the gospels,
review the following ... "
Otho
"Biomes/Mark" <bio...@riconnect.com> wrote in message
news:3CCCD5C1...@riconnect.com...
they, the literalists, will have to admit that the human mind exists.
Otho
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sX4z8.52237$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.
When you read Acts, there seem to be similarities between some narratives in
Acts and those in Josephus, who copied who or is it just coincidence?
The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
believe he existed. Take it up with them.
Because there are more websites which proclaim that Jesus did not exist than
there are of those that proclaim he did simply means that the atheists are
more active in this domain than Christians. LOL.
1Ki 2:22 -
King Shlomo answered his mother, Why do you ask Avishag the Shunammite for
Adoniyahu? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even
for him, and for Avyatar the Kohen, and for Yo'av the son of Tzeru'yah.
Is the US treasurer a virgin?
>
Otho
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>
> Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
> Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
> aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
> of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
> documents and theories abound as to the reasons
> the documents were written and what the source
> for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
> scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
> non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
> as a result of the following ...
>
I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
Why should I.
Read again.
"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
True or not?
Jesus Christ
> > I agree with you, but you must understand that readers of this
> > newsgroup
> are
> > constantly bombarded by clueless people like boatwright and others,
> > who honestly beleive the bible is inerrant. For these people the
> > bible is a history book. Thus the approach you refer to has almost
> > become default. Mark
> >
> I understand. The literalist fringe is a dying race, I hope. Sooner or
> later they, the literalists, will have to admit that the human mind
> exists.
They'll admit it once they have proof the human mind exists, and they're
certainly not looking for or using one. :)
Dan Fake
>
> I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
> Why should I.
> Read again.
> "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>
> True or not?
You made the statement, and scholarship promoting
christianity is quite well-seasoned, you know, being
that christianity ruled the western world for the better
part of over 1,000 years 'til the age of reason finally
unburdened the inquisitive nature of humankind and
freed us, in large measure, from the submission to
faith as the be-all / end-all of life. The key question
regarding your statement - is the scholarship you refer
to impartial and objective -or- is it, instead, a result of
over 1,000 years of church rule and a plethora of scho-
lars trained by the church to promote the theology of
the church, in varying ways?
How many independent non-churchified academics
are there relative to those disinclined from objectivity,
the theofiles? Probably mates perfectly to your state-
ment, don't you think?
As previously stated ...
Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
documents and theories abound as to the reasons
the documents were written and what the source
for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
as a result of the following ...
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
Dan Fake
The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
of to what extent and by whom.
---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---
Tiger
>> But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
>> They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an
>> addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>
> ---
> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://danfake.home.att.net
> ---
What the *majority* of *Jewish* scholars think about the "Testimonium
Flavianum:"
"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man..." - authentic
"...if indeed one ought to call him a man." - interpolation
"For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such
people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of
the Greeks." - authentic
"He was the Christ." - interpolation
"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first
place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."
- authentic
"On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the
prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous
things about him." - interpolation
"And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this
day not disappeared." - authentic
All based on grammar and syntax. Clearly, Jesus existed.
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
John P. Boatwright
>
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
> >
> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> >>
> >> > David wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >> >
> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >>
> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > >infants?
> >>
> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
The Palestinians claim they have NO order to
slaughter their own kids. Arafat seems to be
quite reluctant to say that he's ordered it.
Yet he did claim MILLIONS of "martyrs" should go off
and kill themselves at Jerusalem... and that he wanted
to die a "martyr"... I wonder if anyone will ever
remember that through history?
???
Anyway, the Jews have no record of it either, no
record where they claim Palestinians told their kids
to blow themselves up.
Seems like the documentation about it is rather sparse
yet it happens once a week or more.
The main news medias claim they have no record of anyone
ordering it.
Yet there was a couple of photos out recently where a
guy was holding his kid with mock bombs attached to
them... I believe it was over in Egypt where the photos
were taken.
With all the kids blowing up over there, you'd think
someone would have a record of it being said to be
done...
Huh...
Oh!!! I remember now.
Hamas said they ordered it.
Yep, they said they order it... yet there's no record
of it other than some phone calls where they claim they
ordered it... nothing in writing... or is there?
Will it all get lost over decades? When it's all
"blown over", will they ALL lose the info about it?
Will all that "explosive" stuff going on over there
become a myth?
All those people blowing up... a myth??? Did it ever
really happen???
Can you prove anyone ever ordered it?
How will you or anyone else ever prove anyone ever
ordered it? What if they were all just suicidal and
did it on their own for no reason?
Again, can you EVER prove that anyone ordered it?
Didn't think so.
> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
Mary and Joseph fled to protect Jesus from being
taken and killed.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:Sn6z8.56589$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>> But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
>>> They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an
>>> addition or a forgery.
>>
>> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
>> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
>> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
>> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
>> of to what extent and by whom.
>>
>> ---
>> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> http://danfake.home.att.net
>> ---
>
>What the *majority* of *Jewish* scholars think about the "Testimonium
>Flavianum:"
Except that there is no way to show that any of this is authentic.
Which renders the whole thing worthless.
>"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man..." - authentic
Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.
>"...if indeed one ought to call him a man." - interpolation
>
>"For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such
>people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of
>the Greeks." - authentic
Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.
>"He was the Christ." - interpolation
>
>"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
>among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first
>place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."
>- authentic
Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.
>"On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the
>prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous
>things about him." - interpolation
>
>"And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this
>day not disappeared." - authentic
And this bit obviously isn't ("to this day").
The Great Hairy One
Gidday Otho,
> How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> birth?
By archaeological finds, historical records and so on. The usual
methods.
> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
Not true. First of all most atheists will assert this, along with many
people who follow non-christian religions. Secondly, define 'small
number'. If you mean >75%, then you'd be right, I reckon. People who
study ancient history and archaeology are constantly *not* finding
evidence of the biblical Jesus. If the boy actually did half the things
he was meant to, you'd think someone would have noticed! But it's
looking like no one did... Which implies he never was.
--
The Great Hairy One,
Squire of BAAWA
I'm totally SMASHed!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The essentials of roleplaying - two
10-sided dice and a strap on.
(Remove spam block to email)
Otho
> > They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum,"
> > is an addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>
one of Josephus' original manuscripts is found.
Otho
I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
Why should I.
Read again.
"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
I know you are looking for an argument and you are just not going to have
that argument with me. Do I make myself clear?
>
PMD
seen to type in talk.atheism:
If you claimed that Jesus existed as a person then the onus os on you
to demonstrate that, and, as you were asked, using historically
reliable information.
As has been pointed out to you on several occasions there IS no
historically _reliable_ information. The vast majority is second hand
ta best and third or fourth hand as a matter of course. Josephus is
disputed and thus cannot be deemed _reliable_.
>Why should I.
Because you made the claim?
>Read again.
>"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
>in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
And read what was written to you again. How many of that number have a
self-interest in claiming that he existed due to them being believers?
That you don't even want to address this point speaks volumes in
itself.
>I know you are looking for an argument and you are just not going to have
>that argument with me. Do I make myself clear?
Perfectly. We are quite aware that you have no argument and that your
claim - that Jesus existed - in not demonstrable with any known
reliable contemporary document.
I really don't know how people like you manage to do it - that is run
around in circles with your head buried in the ground. Would make a
great movie though....
--
>> PMD aa#167
--
Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:27
http://www.hornetsnest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (opening soon)
>God is a solipsist >> civility = my_view*your_view/my_certainty^2
I know how the universe was created but according to my calculations
I will die before I can tell anyo..... NO CARRIER
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem. They can't prove that
>Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.
We don't have to - nobody would give a toss about Jesus if Christians
didn't rub our faces in their beliefs. And nobody would give a toss
about Josephus if they didn't use it to try and prove Jesus. But they
have to explain (not rationalise) exactly why a Jewish writer would
use later Christian phrasing for a paragraph and then revert to his
original Jewish style.
>When you read Acts, there seem to be similarities between some narratives in
>Acts and those in Josephus, who copied who or is it just coincidence?
>The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
>in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>What does that tell you? It simply means that the majority of academics do
>believe he existed. Take it up with them.
We're talking with you, not them. Your copout is noted.
>Because there are more websites which proclaim that Jesus did not exist than
>there are of those that proclaim he did simply means that the atheists are
>more active in this domain than Christians. LOL.
Bullshit.
Otho
> > They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum,"
> > is an addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>
In Against Apion, Josephus quoted from Dius he identified as a Phoenician
historian to prove to Greek historians that Solomon existed or was it to
prove Solomon built the original temple of Jebus, Salem, Jerusalem,
whatever.
Was that quotation in Dius' "Histories of the Phoenicians" a Jewish
interpolation?
Does it prove that Solomon existed, that Solomon built that temple?
LOL.
1Ki 1:15 -
Bat-Sheva went in to the king into the chamber: and the king was very old;
and Avishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king. :-)
Against Apion,
17. "I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to
those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and
shall produce attestations to what I have said out of them. There
are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of
many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with
great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among
them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations
also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was
recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem,
one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians
built Carthage; and in their annals the building of our temple is
related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon
our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from
his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the
splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of
one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most
excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus,
and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only
made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a
country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. (13) But there
was another passion, a philosophic inclination of theirs, which
cemented the friendship that was betwixt them; for they sent
mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them
unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom,
as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many of the
epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the
Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will
produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written
the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius,
therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:
"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This
king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged
it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood
before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway
between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He
moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the
building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was
king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and
desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he
who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money
to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the
proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged
to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same. As also
they relate, that oneśAbdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the
problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve, upon
which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom."
These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have
said upon the same subjects before.
Tiger
news:di1qcu8pik8t8ah4k...@4ax.com:
LOL.
>
>>All based on grammar and syntax. Clearly, Jesus existed.
>
>
All authentic based on syntax and grammar. The interpolations were
clear. The statements marked "authentic" above are identical in
syntax and vocabulary to the pattern established by Josephus in the
remainder of his works.
Otho
"PMD" <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ke5qcuc6lij51tdjc...@4ax.com...
Now just one second you idiots. In this thread, I did not claim Jesus
existed. I made a statement and that statement reads:
"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
Now that to me is plain english.
I can repost that in french if you can't understand english.
Smarten up.
>
> I really don't know how people like you manage to do it - that is run
> around in circles with your head buried in the ground. Would make a
> great movie though....
>
Bullshit. Follow the thread. Search Google.
Otho
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g11qcu8pm4g0ka182...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:54:50 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem. They can't prove
that
> >Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.
>
> We don't have to - nobody would give a toss about Jesus if Christians
> didn't rub our faces in their beliefs. And nobody would give a toss
> about Josephus if they didn't use it to try and prove Jesus. But they
> have to explain (not rationalise) exactly why a Jewish writer would
> use later Christian phrasing for a paragraph and then revert to his
> original Jewish style.
>
be Jewish. Heard that one before.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Then you should be able to give a good explanation.
xofpi
>
>David wrote:
>>
>> Jesus was a fictional character.
>>
>
>a number of other events of the time. There were also
>witnesses that wrote of him.
The quote in Josephus reads suspiciously like a Christian interpolation, and, in
fact, even many honest Christian scholars see it as such. It is unlikely that a
Jew who was trying to get on the good side of the Romans would have made it
sound as though he believed Jesus was the son of God.
Which other witnesses are you talking about, besides the "apostles?" Why is Paul
silent on the "facts" of Jesus's "life?"
>You lose.
Mussi...@cxl.aa
>
><Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
>news:sN3z8.249002$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
>> >
>> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
>> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>> >>
>> >> > David wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
>> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
>> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>> >>
>> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
>> > >infants?
>> >>
>> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>> >
>> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
>> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
>> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
>> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
>
>Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation between
>Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
>much.
>>
Nowhere does Josephus mention Herod's order to slaughter infants. It
never happened. The Romans would have thought nothing of recording
it, but they didn't, and neither did Josephus. I made no claim that
the Jews liked Herod; Herod might have treated them badly, but no
Moses/YHVH-I style murder of infants took place.
>> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
>> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
>> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
>> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
>>
>You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
This agrees with the point of the thread. My approach treats the Bible
as anything but a history book, especially the New Testament. Perhaps
you are somehow confused about what I wrote?
>narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a meaning. "...
>preposterous fabrication, politically and historically naive" ? I think you
>are the one that is being preposterous, politically and historically naive.
How so? I pointed out that two significant historical claims of
the New Testament have no basis in fact. The tax fable is indeed
preposterous.
>Storytelling in the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the
>Jewish mind, you should know that. Why should the authors of the New
>Testament writings have used a different genre of literature? You read
>biblical narratives and you conclude that those who wrote them were
>"politically and historically naive". I don't buy that. I think they rather
>were intelligent. I can't say that of you though. You should know better.
>
I never claimed they were stupid, merely uninformed. The
ever-practical Romans would have never uprooted the population
in a paroxysm of administrative tax collecting, and to suggest
otherwise indicates political naivete. Intelligent of or not, the
New Testament writers knew little of the life and times of Herod's
world, and were not overly familiar with messianic prophesies,
either; they got the big sacrifice wrong, for example. Jesus would
have been the Ram of God, not the Lamb of God. Perhaps "naive"
is too mild a word. "Ignorant" would have been more to the point.
--
Of the three Popes, John the Twenty-third was the first
victim: he fled and was brought back a prisoner: the
most scandalous charges were suppressed: the Vicar of
Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy,
and incest. _Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire_, Gibbon
Jorgens
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > > > > >
See ... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
Dan Fake
> "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
The assertion at issue is that Jesus existed. Can
you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
The gospels, being religious documents full of
myth combined with some places and people
actually around at the time the documents refer
to, are not considered historical, by any legiti-
mate (i.e., non-churchified) academics. So, what
else might they be using, do you think, and how
reliable is it, do you think?
You've already been provided a short list and rea-
sons why that list does not substantiate a Jesus as
ever living. You've already been shown the inade-
quacy of the Josephus scant comments on a Jesus
and the controversy regarding the interpolations
likely inherent therein.
Care to share what those academics have to say
on the matter? Do you think Jesus existed? If you
do, why do you, what is your core reason for thinking
Jesus existed, if indeed you do think Jesus existed?
Do you think it's probable and evidential that the gos-
pel stories were based substantially on an assemblage
of religions and christs from other religions, and that
a Jesus (or multiple Jesus types) is irrelevant to the key
issue at hand, that being the faith of christianity based
on a god existing, a son of a god existing, and that son
of a god mating the combination of myths and events
expressed in the gospels?
If you do think Jesus existed, what do you think he
did, where was he born, where did he live, how did
he die, and why do you think he was combined with
a plethora of myths to form the orthodox christian
faith endorsed by Constantine almost 300 years after
he died, had he ever really lived?
Be sure to use historically valid information in your
reply, if you care to address the issue. Also, while
you're at it, list some doubts the academics you
cite have regarding the Jesus character as ever existing,
doubts which they would have to overcome (by guess
or leap of faith) in order to assert that the character
existed and what the character was.
Academics (even churchified ones) have often stated
that they cannot find the historical Jesus. Do you agree
that there is no historical Jesus to be found, that there
is nothing but a mention of a Jesus and point in fact
those mentions could easily be explained by the nature
of the christ mythos present in gnosticism, paganism,
and other religions popular for centuries prior to the
writing of the gospel stories?
Vast volumes have been written about this Jesus - how
much of it is educated guess and how much mere fabri-
cation, and how much of it applies to a validated histor-
ical figure and how much to a caricature of what a
savior-type might have been like based on educated
guesses, do you think? If there is a lot of historical
guessing going on regarding this Jesus, why do you
think that is?
Might it have something to do with the mysterious
academics you mention *wanting* a Jesus to exist,
rather than using historically valid methods to make
a convincing case that a Jesus actually existed?
After all, once a myth seeps deeply into a society,
isn't it tempting to go along with it rather than critically
address the lack of evidence for the myth being any-
thing other than a myth?
See muslim societies for reference on bowing to Mecca
5 times per day without one iota of evidence that allah
is anything but myth. It's even written into law and deeply
entwined with the law, this worship of allah thing, in muslim
societies. Try bringing up doubt regarding allah or moham-
med's existence in many muslim societies and it may cost
you your life or your freedom ...
... Hearken back to the way it was in the western world
regarding a Jesus, for over 1,000 years, disbelieve (or
believe in the 'wrong' way) and it might cost you your
life or your freedom, and therein resides the seeds for
the deceit that undergirds the Jesus myth machine that
keeps pushing the notion that doubt regarding a Jesus
man is just not de rigueur, regardless of the dearth of
evidence that anyone remotely resembling the Jesus of
the gospels ever existed as anything but an assemblage
of myths placed on an imaginary religious figure and
the events going on in the day and age the imaginary
religious figure would have existed, where he anything
other than imaginary.
Dies Irae
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote
> You lose.
both of you lose...i'm pretty sure there was a jesus (i read a proof on it
once) but the fact that he was a nutcase claiming to be 1/3 of the patriarch
of the human race seems to escape people
if i pushed the fact that i was "the son of god" i would be put into a loony
bin, just as he should've
Dan Fake
>
> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote
> > You lose.
>
> both of you lose...i'm pretty sure there was a jesus (i read a proof
> on it once)
Proof of Jesus? Please locate that for us, as I would
be most interested in such a proof ... there is plenty
of doubt, but I've never seen anyone prove a Jesus
man existed in any way other than as a deference to
a supposed gospel figure treated as real rather than
imaginary, based on claim rather than historical fact.
Even the epistle Paul (a christian proponent prior to
the writing of the gospels) didn't seem to know (or
care) hardly anything about a Jesus man - you'd think
that would be a hot topic with an early promoter of
faith in a Jesus man as son of god, if he was actually
a man rather than merely a heavenly christ icon ...
---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---
> but the fact that he was a nutcase claiming to be 1/3 of the patriarch
xofpi
What are the salient characteristics of the Jesus we all know and love or love
to hate? By far most of them are the items you have to take on faith (the virgin
birth, the miracles, the genetic relation to god, the resurrection). Assume
there was a Jesus that the Biblical one was based on: if he lived in the
universe that I live, his life was nothing like the Biblical Jesus's. He could
not have been born of a virgin. He could not have performed miracles. He could
not in any conventional sense have been genetically related to God. He could not
possibly have risen from the dead. The salient parts of Jesus' character are
pure fiction.
Dies Irae
"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote
>his life was nothing like the Biblical Jesus's.
i agree completely, i never said any part of it was true, just that it's not
impossible that such a lunatic could have existed (not by biblical standards
though)
Otho
<Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
news:sqdz8.254157$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
xofpi
Okay, but my point is that if the fictional Jesus is nothing like the "original"
Jesus, then the original Jesus is essentially irrelevant. It's the fictional
Jesus that people worship and that has had an impact on history and culture,
just as the "original" King Arthur, if there was one, or the original Agamemnon
could not approach either of their fictional counterparts in their effects on
human thought down through the ages. When speaking of King Arthur, we assume
we're talking about the fictional one. It's the same with Agamemnon, but for
some reason people are unable or unwilling to admit they're talking about a
fictional character when they're talking about Jesus.
Otho
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>
> The assertion at issue is that Jesus existed. Can
> you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
> The gospels, being religious documents full of
> myth combined with some places and people
> actually around at the time the documents refer
> to, are not considered historical, by any legiti-
> mate (i.e., non-churchified) academics. So, what
> else might they be using, do you think, and how
> reliable is it, do you think?
The Gospels are indeed religious and theological Christian documents. What
else is new? The Old Testament is a religious and theological Jewish
document. Neither are history books.
>
> You've already been provided a short list and rea-
> sons why that list does not substantiate a Jesus as
> ever living. You've already been shown the inade-
> quacy of the Josephus scant comments on a Jesus
> and the controversy regarding the interpolations
> likely inherent therein.
I'm quite familiar with the writings of Josephus. I mentioned that you
cannot prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" is a Christian insertion
in Josephus' writings, an interpolation, whatever.
>
> Care to share what those academics have to say
> on the matter? Do you think Jesus existed? If you
> do, why do you, what is your core reason for thinking
> Jesus existed, if indeed you do think Jesus existed?
>
I believe Jesus existed. So what?
Why ask me to share what academics have to say on the matter? Search the
web.
> Do you think it's probable and evidential that the gos-
> pel stories were based substantially on an assemblage
> of religions and christs from other religions, and that
> a Jesus (or multiple Jesus types) is irrelevant to the key
> issue at hand, that being the faith of christianity based
> on a god existing, a son of a god existing, and that son
> of a god mating the combination of myths and events
> expressed in the gospels?
Read the story of Abram. It is said that he first believed the sun was God,
ended up being called Abraham. I believe in evolution. Do I believe
Abram/Abraham existed? No.
>
> If you do think Jesus existed, what do you think he
> did, where was he born, where did he live, how did
> he die, and why do you think he was combined with
> a plethora of myths to form the orthodox christian
> faith endorsed by Constantine almost 300 years after
> he died, had he ever really lived?
Does it matter where Jesus was born? Why ask me how he died, what he did, if
you don't believe he existed?
>
> Be sure to use historically valid information in your
> reply, if you care to address the issue. Also, while
> you're at it, list some doubts the academics you
> cite have regarding the Jesus character as ever existing,
> doubts which they would have to overcome (by guess
> or leap of faith) in order to assert that the character
> existed and what the character was.
Like I said before, I don't have to prove you anything. My statement was
quite clear. Majority of academics assert that Jesus existed. Prove my
statement wrong.
>
> Academics (even churchified ones) have often stated
> that they cannot find the historical Jesus. Do you agree
> that there is no historical Jesus to be found, that there
> is nothing but a mention of a Jesus and point in fact
> those mentions could easily be explained by the nature
> of the christ mythos present in gnosticism, paganism,
> and other religions popular for centuries prior to the
> writing of the gospel stories?
Why should it worry you? You believe that Jesus was a creation of the mind,
I don't. You can speculate as much you want, do you really think it matters?
To me it don't.
>
> Vast volumes have been written about this Jesus - how
> much of it is educated guess and how much mere fabri-
> cation, and how much of it applies to a validated histor-
> ical figure and how much to a caricature of what a
> savior-type might have been like based on educated
> guesses, do you think? If there is a lot of historical
> guessing going on regarding this Jesus, why do you
> think that is?
Why ask, why should it interest you?
>
> Might it have something to do with the mysterious
> academics you mention *wanting* a Jesus to exist,
> rather than using historically valid methods to make
> a convincing case that a Jesus actually existed?
Why do you wish he had not existed?
>
> After all, once a myth seeps deeply into a society,
> isn't it tempting to go along with it rather than critically
> address the lack of evidence for the myth being any-
> thing other than a myth?
You can't prove Jesus is a myth. If you were that certain Jesus was a myth,
you would not be asking questions would you?
>
> See muslim societies for reference on bowing to Mecca
> 5 times per day without one iota of evidence that allah
> is anything but myth. It's even written into law and deeply
> entwined with the law, this worship of allah thing, in muslim
> societies. Try bringing up doubt regarding allah or moham-
> med's existence in many muslim societies and it may cost
> you your life or your freedom ...
Why? Do you doubt that Allah in the minds of Muslims is not God, the God of
Christians and Jews? Try bringing up doubt regarding Napoleon and the French
will laugh at you. It might cost you your freedom but mental institutions
don't generally kill people do they?
>
> ... Hearken back to the way it was in the western world
> regarding a Jesus, for over 1,000 years, disbelieve (or
> believe in the 'wrong' way) and it might cost you your
> life or your freedom, and therein resides the seeds for
> the deceit that undergirds the Jesus myth machine that
> keeps pushing the notion that doubt regarding a Jesus
> man is just not de rigueur, regardless of the dearth of
> evidence that anyone remotely resembling the Jesus of
> the gospels ever existed as anything but an assemblage
> of myths placed on an imaginary religious figure and
> the events going on in the day and age the imaginary
> religious figure would have existed, where he anything
> other than imaginary.
You is pushing you? Believe what you may. Do you think I care?
Otho
surprised?news:L8ez8.56912$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dies Irae
"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote
> Okay, but my point is that if the fictional Jesus is nothing like the
"original"
> Jesus, then the original Jesus is essentially irrelevant. It's the
fictional
> Jesus that people worship and that has had an impact on history and
culture,
> just as the "original" King Arthur, if there was one, or the original
Agamemnon
> could not approach either of their fictional counterparts in their effects
on
> human thought down through the ages. When speaking of King Arthur, we
assume
> we're talking about the fictional one. It's the same with Agamemnon, but
for
> some reason people are unable or unwilling to admit they're talking about
a
> fictional character when they're talking about Jesus.
ok...that's what i've said twice now
JonJones
Ot...@netcrawlers.edu says...
> Read your post. You made up your mind that Jesus did not exist. Should I be
> surprised?
I would be surprised if you ever trimmed your quotes.
Hal9000
news:3CCC8F...@For-God.net...
> David wrote:
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time. There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.
WHERE Giuseppe Flavio did wrote about a "Jesus"? Did you meant perhaps the
Testimonium Flavianum, that WELL RENOWED post-nicean fake? GF never spake
about any "Jesus" either Bellum Judaicum or in Antiquitates Judaica, you
nerd....
> You lose.
You too; all the innings ahead.
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Wonder how a "perfect" god needs to send anyone in order to save men from a
sin which he cannot avoid....
> Proof God described the planet density profile
> BEFORE science did:
> http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
> (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Proof that god never invented the brain; read your post again....
> Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Mirror site; www.kook-o'-the-year.koo....
Hal.
_______________________________
"I'm god thy god, thou will have no
other god before me".
Hal9000, second law of kookology.
Hal9000
news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> birth?
Because no historical records, either archaeological or literary, has been
found about a "Nazareth".... The most ancient findings in the current site
identified as Nazareth (allegedy el-Nasirah) date at most from the 3d
century in this era.... Neither Giuseppe Flavio, who named all the cities of
both Judea and Galilee never put a word about Nazareth; to say the least,
that's very weird for such an important city....
> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
Oh yeah, only those who got no support from the church....
Hal.
_______________________________
"Often a kook becomes a normal guy
once people finds a new one to game".
Hal9000, third law of kookology.
Hal9000
news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
infants?
Nowhere.
Hal9000
news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Now just one second you idiots.
That's perfect for believers to show something of the charitable grace and
patience which their god (pardon, semi-god....) lightened in them with his
"theachings"....
Hal.
_______________________________
"I'm go thy god, a jealous god".
Hal9000, fourth law of kookology.
Hal9000
> Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation
between
> Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
> much.
WHICH jews are you talking of? Maybe the integralist jahwěsts, who hated the
attempt of Herod to establish a post-alexandrinist system of life, the
pharisees either, the followers of Judas the Galilee or perhaps the
post-maccabite agit-props? No wonder the only evangelist who wrote about the
"slaughter" was Mattew, which gospel was the canvas for the ebionites' one
(a filo-pharisean sect.... Herod killed many pharisees; that is the
"slaughter"....).... Herod was no much bad than many other kings of the
past, nay, he was a builder, mantained the order at any costs, defeated the
brigands and gave this people many of his landmarks, but someone needed a
symbol which to put onto all the political bias they needed to put on.
> You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
As the Gospel isn't at all historic; it is a MYTH modeled upon the edomite
religions mixed with very scarce (and lamely rendered) historical facts.
Snipped the rest.
Hal.
________________
Too bored to quote.
Dan Fake
> Read your post. You made up your mind that Jesus did
> not exist. Should I be surprised?
Read the evidence regarding reasons to doubt that
the Jesus as proposed by the christian faith actually
existed in any manner resembling that portrayed in
the gospels, if you're interested. ... if you're not inter-
ested, perhaps your interest in verity falls far short of
your devotion to belief in the Jesus of the gospels
for a promised immortality or else you'll suffer a
hellacious torment, at worst, -or- judgment / oblivion
via a toss in the lake of fire, which is christianity
in a nutshell ... believe or to hell with you (the words
of christians and the theo-philosophy of the new
testamyth) ...
xofpi
xofpi
I hear you now. It can't be said often enough, though. My personal opinion is
that Jesus is as purely mythological as you can get for a major religious
figure, and that there probably never was anyone anything like him. His name
alone is suspicious. It's like the holy version of Snidely Whiplash.
Otho
"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
news:ZDkz8.115283$SR5.2...@twister1.libero.it...
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> > birth?
>
> Because no historical records, either archaeological or literary, has been
> found about a "Nazareth".... The most ancient findings in the current site
> identified as Nazareth (allegedy el-Nasirah) date at most from the 3d
> century in this era.... Neither Giuseppe Flavio, who named all the cities
of
> both Judea and Galilee never put a word about Nazareth; to say the least,
> that's very weird for such an important city....
>
> > The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
> live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>
> Oh yeah, only those who got no support from the church....
>
surprisingly, Jesus' Nazareth origins are held up to scorn by those
skeptical of his mission.
John 1:46
Natan'el said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Natzeret?" Pilipos
said to him, "Come and see."
By the way, Flavius Josephus or Giuseppe Flavio's real name was YOSIPPOS.
Otho
"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Now just one second you idiots.
>
> That's perfect for believers to show something of the charitable grace and
> patience which their god (pardon, semi-god....) lightened in them with his
> "theachings"....
>
(A British marine in Afghanistan.) LOL
Otho
"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:Vc4z8.7371$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation
> between
> > Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you
that
> > much.
>
> WHICH jews are you talking of? Maybe the integralist jahwěsts, who hated
the
> attempt of Herod to establish a post-alexandrinist system of life, the
> pharisees either, the followers of Judas the Galilee or perhaps the
> post-maccabite agit-props? No wonder the only evangelist who wrote about
the
> "slaughter" was Mattew, which gospel was the canvas for the ebionites' one
> (a filo-pharisean sect.... Herod killed many pharisees; that is the
> "slaughter"....).... Herod was no much bad than many other kings of the
> past, nay, he was a builder, mantained the order at any costs, defeated
the
> brigands and gave this people many of his landmarks, but someone needed a
> symbol which to put onto all the political bias they needed to put on.
>
I don't think you can teach me anything about Herod the Great.
> > You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
>
> As the Gospel isn't at all historic; it is a MYTH modeled upon the edomite
> religions mixed with very scarce (and lamely rendered) historical facts.
Oh. So you are an expert in Edomite religions? Care to tell us what the
Edomite religions were? You must be joking.
Herod the Great's father was an Idumaean and his mother a Nabataean.
Otho
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that
the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to
the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have
ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he
falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for
their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only
through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome
also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world
find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made
of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense
multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of
hatred against mankind"
(Cornelius Tacitus-Annals)
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good,
and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other
nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to
die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after
his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the
Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe
of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
(Yosippos-Antiquities)
Jesus Christ
us:
> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> infants?
>
> Nowhere.
Exactly. I'm trying to trap John, though. He can't accept both the bible
and Josephus as reliable if one contradicts the other.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark
----------------
PMD
seen to type in talk.atheism:
>
>"PMD" <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ke5qcuc6lij51tdjc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:01:17 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> was
>> seen to type in talk.atheism:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:b66z8.52277$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:vp5z8.8475$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
>> >> > Why should I.
>> >> > Read again.
>> >> > "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did
>not
>> >live
>> >> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>> >> >
>> >> > True or not?
>> >>
>> >> You made the statement, and scholarship promoting
>> >> christianity is quite well-seasoned, you know, being
>> >> that christianity ruled the western world for the better
>> >> part of over 1,000 years 'til the age of reason finally
>> >> unburdened the inquisitive nature of humankind and
>> >> freed us, in large measure, from the submission to
>> >> faith as the be-all / end-all of life. The key question
>> >> regarding your statement - is the scholarship you refer
>> >> to impartial and objective -or- is it, instead, a result of
>> >> over 1,000 years of church rule and a plethora of scho-
>> >> lars trained by the church to promote the theology of
>> >> the church, in varying ways?
>> >>
>> >> How many independent non-churchified academics
>> >> are there relative to those disinclined from objectivity,
>> >> the theofiles? Probably mates perfectly to your state-
>> >> ment, don't you think?
>> >>
>> >> As previously stated ...
>> >>
>> >> Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
>> >> Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
>> >> aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
>> >> of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
>> >> documents and theories abound as to the reasons
>> >> the documents were written and what the source
>> >> for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
>> >> scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
>> >> non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
>> >> as a result of the following ...
>> >>
>> >> Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
>> >> http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> >> http://danfake.home.att.net
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >Again I will repeat my answer to your previous post.
>> >I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
>>
>> If you claimed that Jesus existed as a person then the onus os on you
>> to demonstrate that, and, as you were asked, using historically
>> reliable information.
>>
>> As has been pointed out to you on several occasions there IS no
>> historically _reliable_ information. The vast majority is second hand
>> ta best and third or fourth hand as a matter of course. Josephus is
>> disputed and thus cannot be deemed _reliable_.
>>
>> >Why should I.
>>
>> Because you made the claim?
>>
>> >Read again.
>> >"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
>live
>> >in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>>
>> And read what was written to you again. How many of that number have a
>> self-interest in claiming that he existed due to them being believers?
>> That you don't even want to address this point speaks volumes in
>> itself.
>>
>> >I know you are looking for an argument and you are just not going to have
>> >that argument with me. Do I make myself clear?
>>
>> Perfectly. We are quite aware that you have no argument and that your
>> claim - that Jesus existed - in not demonstrable with any known
>> reliable contemporary document.
>
>Now just one second you idiots. In this thread, I did not claim Jesus
>existed. I made a statement and that statement reads:
>"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
>in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
And this has been addressed twice, at least, and on all occasions you
have failed to respond in preference to restating the thing under
dispute.
>Now that to me is plain english.
It is plain English and WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.
>I can repost that in french if you can't understand english.
>Smarten up.
Go fuck yourself bleater. Get the evidence of your god in here or
simply shut the fuck up with your nonsense. Savvy?
>> I really don't know how people like you manage to do it - that is run
>> around in circles with your head buried in the ground. Would make a
>> great movie though....
>>
>Bullshit. Follow the thread. Search Google.
Yes, I'm quite sure that everything you have contributed to this
thread is bullshit.
--
>> PMD aa#167
--
Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:27
http://www.hornetsnest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (opening soon)
>God is a solipsist >> civility = my_view*your_view/my_certainty^2
I know how the universe was created but according to my calculations
I will die before I can tell anyo..... NO CARRIER
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
no convoluted excuses at all, just some logical thinking...
(quoted from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)
"Two questions arise concerning this passage:
Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus
just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the
text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium
Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be
repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this
passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and
that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius.
This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the
other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to
which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation.
There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records
here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a
prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious
title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a
Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent
reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said
about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity. "
> "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good,
> and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other
> nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to
> die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
> discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after
> his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the
> Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe
> of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
> (Yosippos-Antiquities)
(again, quoted from
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)
"1: The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize
Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where
Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this
particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above
was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin
version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the
Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this
passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is
thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even
if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2: The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a
Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly
killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out
to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case."
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
proof: god hates Baptists and likes gays... http://morons.org/articles/3/359
-------------------------------
the illustrated bible:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/crazycrap/view.asp?ID=5403
-------------------------------
http://truthordare.dyndns.org/t-or-d
Now, here's a little game that a lot of us played before a certain
over-rated bleached-blonde singer ever got the idea.
It's simple. It's titillating. It's childish. It's perfect!
And now it's updated for the Net.
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them your a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
let the spammers put these in their databases....
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
Hal9000
> Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT, Josephus, or rabbinic writings. Not
> surprisingly, Jesus' Nazareth origins are held up to scorn by those
> skeptical of his mission.
> John 1:46
> Natan'el said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Natzeret?" Pilipos
> said to him, "Come and see."
Well, where's the problem? It seems we are sayng the same things using for
different words.
>
> By the way, Flavius Josephus or Giuseppe Flavio's real name was YOSIPPOS.
So what? I already know what was his original name.
Hal9000
> Who were those Jews? The Jerusalem Jewish establishment.
> I don't think you can teach me anything about Herod the Great.
Not even you to me.
> Oh. So you are an expert in Edomite religions? Care to tell us what the
> Edomite religions were? You must be joking.
Yes, I'm an edomite "religions'" expert besides others more, from Sinai to
Siria as for this range. But, who were "us"?
> Herod the Great's father was an Idumaean and his mother a Nabataean.
So what? Wanna a genealogical tree from me now?
Dan Fake
>
>[Tacitus and Josephus quotes]
In addition to the reply by prabbit1, Tacitus wrote the passage
you mentioned in 120 C.E. ... compare to someone writing today
about a death in 1912 and in the reporting, using a story found in
religious texts as the source, rather than secular sources.
The passage you listed by Josephus was already explained as an
obvious interpolation, in several posts in this thread and elsewhere.
Rather than list the meager non-religious writings regarding a Jesus
or messiah, simply review the following concise website:
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
---
For comprehensive examination of those writings and much
more concerning the religious writings regarding Jesus, read
the following ...
- - -
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with
a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence
of an Historical Jesus, by Earl J. Doherty
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
www.jesuspuzzle.com
www.jesuspuzzle.org
From the Back Cover: " Why are the events of
the Gospel story, and its central character Jesus
of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament
epistles? Why does Paul's divine Christ seem
to have no connection to the Gospel Jesus, but
closely resembles the many pagan savior gods
of the time who lived only in myth?
Why, given the spread of Christianity across the
Roman Empire in the first century, did only one
Christian community compose a story of Jesus'
life and death-the Gospel of Mark-while every
other Gospel simply copied and reworked the
first one? Why is every detail in the Gospel story
of Jesus' trial and crucifixion drawn from passages
in the Old Testament?
The answer to these and other questions surrounding
the New Testament will come as a shock to those
who imagine that the origins of Christianity and the
figure of Jesus are securely represented by Christian
tradition and the Gospels. With the arrival of the
third millennium, the time has come to face the
stunning realization that for the last 1900 years,
Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the
faith who probably never existed.
- - -
The Jesus Mysteries : Was the 'Original Jesus'
a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/060960581X
http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/09/21/jesus.mysteries/index.html
"This astonishing book completely undermines
the traditional history of Christianity that has been
perpetuated for centuries by the Church. Drawing
on the cutting edge of modern scholarship, authors
Tim Freke and Peter Gandy present overwhelming
evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament is
a mythical figure.
Far from being eyewitness accounts, as is traditionally
held, the Gospels are actually Jewish adaptations of
ancient Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting
godman Osiris-Dionysus. The supernatural story of
Jesus is not the history of a miraculous Messiah, but
a carefully crafted spiritual allegory designed to guide
initiates on a journey of mystical discovery.
A little more than a century ago most people believed
that the strange story of Adam and Eve was history;
today it is understood to be a myth. Within a few
decades, Freke and Gandy argue, we will likewise
be amazed that the fabulous story of God incarnate
-- who was born of a virgin, who turned water into
wine, and who rose from the dead -- could have
been interpreted as anything but a profound parable. ..."
- - -
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story
Ever Sold, by Acharya S
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813747
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm
"Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy
marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence
that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were
created by members of various secret societies,
mystery schools and religions in order to unify the
Roman Empire under one state religion!
This powerful book maintains that these groups
drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that
already existed long before the Christian era and
reworked them into the story the Christian religion
presents today-known to most Westerners as the
Bible.
Author Acharya makes the case that there was no
actual person named Jesus, but that several characters
were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the
deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and
many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates
that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels,
is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier
savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that
Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor
was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents
the very ancient body of knowledge derived from
celestial observation and natural forces."
- - -
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You
to Read, by Tim C. Leedom (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
"Consider this book as a kind of consumer
protection guide to religion, a big step forward
toward religious literacy. Readers will explore
myths, origins, fundamentalism, television
ministries, the identical stories of Stellar/Pagan/
Christian beliefs, unfounded doctrines, child
abuse, the Year 2000, and women's rights."
- - -
Deconstructing Jesus, by Robert M. Price
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573927589
Robert M. Price summarizes many recent scholarly
trends, providing sympathetic criticism, and then
takes up where scholars like Burton L. Mack and
John Dominic Crossan leave off. Putting many
puzzles and scholarly debates in a surprising new
light, this volume is filled with new textual insights
that pave the way for a new reconstruction of
Christian origins.
An excellent introduction to today's debates about
the historical Jesus and early Christianity. Price
illustrates a new paradigm linking the approaches
of F.C. Baur, Walter Bauer, Helmut Koester, and
James M. Robinson with the neglected work of the
Christ-Myth theorists of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, providing a valuable bridge
between two distinct camps of biblical analysis.
Price's incorporation of neglected gospel parallels
from Islam, the Baha'i faith, and Buddhism result
in a refreshing cross-fertilization of principles."
- - -
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark,
by Dennis R. MacDonald
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300080123
"MacDonald argues that the author of Mark
consciously emulated Homeric epic. He begins
by describing the common Greco-Roman custom
of teaching prose composition through mimesis
(Greek) or imitatio (Latin) and by pointing out
several examples of their practice in pagan, Jewish
and later Christian texts.
He then proceeds to make the controversial case
that large portions of Mark draw either directly
on the texts or indirectly on the topic of Homer.
The argument is compelling and meticulously
constructed."
- - -
One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus
Inspired Not One True Christianity, but
Many : The Truth About Christian Origins,
by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060667990
"Riley argues that Jesus had a lot in common
with familiar figures like Hercules and Achilles.
The classical heroes claimed a mix of
divine-human parentage, usually with a
virgin human mother and a god for a father;
they possessed some remarkable or even
miraculous skill; they had divine enemies
and were hated by powerful humans; they
died, often young and violently, as martyrs
for a principle; and their deaths powerfully
transformed other people's lives through
emulation.
Jesus fits the bill perfectly, Riley argues,
because the Gospel writers had obtained
a classical education, which meant that they
were thoroughly steeped in heroic lore.
Early converts readily embraced Christianity's
message, despite tremendous penalty from
a hostile Roman government, because it
captured the heroic formula that peasants
had heard recited and then memorized.
The second half of the book drives home
this point about the source of Christianity's
popularity. Riley demonstrates that it certainly
wasn't doctrine that attracted the masses,
since the earliest apostles couldn't agree on
the most basic tenets of the faith.
Dozens of sects arose in different cities, all
claiming to be the religion of the risen Christ
(though whether he had risen in spirit or body
was itself a subject of heated debate). What
they could agree on was that Jesus was a hero
and that they, as martyrs for the faith, could
become heroes themselves.
Such faithfulness constituted the religion of
Christ into the fourth century, which witnessed
the conversion of Constantine and the great
creedal controversies."
- - -
The Case Against Christianity,
by Michael Martin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566390818
"Logical examination of Christianity by a professional
philosopher - This book is logically thorough and
destroys Christianity on all important evidential and
rational grounds, although I doubt that any whose
faith has been sufficient thus far will be led to
deconvert. It will however expose them to the
fact that they have no rational grounds for their
belief."
- - -
The Christ Myth, by Arthur Drews
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921904
"Drews argues that no basis exists for seeking a
historical figure behind the Christ myth. Indeed,
if anyone may be called the 'great personality' of
Christianity, that person is Paul, who gave it the
strength to conquer rival religions. ... Drews
shows that Christianity is a syncretism of
various pagan and Jewish beliefs, and that
a strong pre-Christian cult of Jesus as son of
God and messiah existed."
- - -
Forgery in Christianity : A Documented
Record of the Foundations of the Christian
Religion, by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564592251
"Wheless describes what he calls the 'Christian
forgery mill'. That mill produced dozens of gospels,
apocalypses, epistles, and various other writings
falsely attributed to disciples of Jesus and others
among his contemporaries.
There was even a forged document attributed to
Pilate in which he confesses before Tiberius that
Jesus was Lord and saviour. He sets this forgery
mill into its historical context as being an extension
of the Jewish apocalyptic literature tradition.
He strengthens his argument by utilizing the
commentaries of various orthodox sources and
does so with great skill, showing that the force
of biblical criticism leaves the rational critic with
little option but to regard the New Testament
(gospels and epistles) as a mass of forgery."
- - -
Is It God's Word : An Exposition of the
Fables & Mythology of the Bible & the Fallacies
of Theology, by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156459226X
"This book combines wit erudition humour and
devastating textual comparison to catch the bible
writers out in their contradictions and self serving
invented laws and prophecies. If I had read this
book 20 year ago I could have saved myself 18
years in the cult of evangelical christianity.
Reading this book played a decisive part in my
deprogramming there from. No doubt modern
higher biblical criticism could tidy up some of
the details in Wheless' book but who wants to
rewrite David Hume or Bertrand Russell? Perhaps
an annotated edition could be bought out by the
Jesus Seminar or Gerd Ludeman. Meanwhile
buy this and read it for shear enjoyment of the
prose and the humour that can be had from
critical study of that looney book the bible."
- - -
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other
Essays, by Joseph McCabe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758333
"One of the most important rationalists of his era
takes readers through the ancient world to show
how Christianity appropriated the ceremonies and
myths of paganism to elaborate the Resurrection
story. McCabe cogently demonstrates that the
Jesus of the gospels is not historical but a curious
amalgam constructed after his death, and the
gospels themselves are unreliable as biographies."
- - -
The Forgery of the Old Testament and Other
Essays, by Joseph McCabe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758503
"In these three classic essays--'The Forgery of the
Old Testament,' 'The Myth of Immortality,' and
'Lies of Religious Literature'--ex-priest Joseph
McCabe exposes the inconsistencies that lie
behind the texts of Christianity. With forcefulness,
clarity, and often biting humor, McCabe attacks
two millennia of Christian tradition using the
weapons of science and reason."
- - -
Making of the Messiah : Christianity and
Resentment, by Robert Sheaffer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879756918
"Differs from conventional works of Freethinkers
by suggesting a radically different picture of the
rise of Christianity. The book describes, to use
Nietzsche's phrase, 'The Birth of Christianity
from the Spirit of Resentment.'
It tells why Christianity could only develop as it
did, emerging from the envious anger of the lower
classes. It shows how Christian writers altered
historical facts to make the new religion 'sell'
better among those seething with resentment
against Roman power and wealth.
By looking at the chronological evolution of
Christian writings and doctrine, exactly as
skeptics investigate contemporary accounts
of UFO abductions or psychic wonders, it is
possible to infer the kinds of objections that
the infant Church must have been struggling
to meet, and from these long-suppressed
objections deduce probable historical fact."
- - -
Gospel Fictions, by Randel Helms
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755725
"This book, valuable to the informal reader as
well as the researcher, highlights the (seemingly
intentionally) embellished nature of the New
Testament, and notes the unconvincing arguments
of Gospel defenders. With clear and convincing
reasoning he exposes various discrepancies in
the gospels, indicating how history was exaggerated
to satisfy prophecies.
Writing as literary critic the author does not pick
an argument with the Christian faith and acknowledges
the value of the Gospels as works of art, but strips
the religious baggage from the New Testament books.
Chapters address the fictional nature of theology,
nativity legends, miracles, passion narratives and
resurrection accounts."
- - -
Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin
and Meaning, by Edward Carpenter,
preface by Paul Tice
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564592111
"A very level-headed approach, doesn't go after
Christianity to attack it, merely compares and
contrasts it with the Pagan world and explores
similarities and hidden meanings still present in
the religion today. Incredible implications."
- - -
Jesus Christ, Sun of God : Ancient Cosmology
and Early Christian Symbolism, by David Fideler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0835606961
"Good first book on the Pagan-Christian
connection by an interested a-religionist. A
solid general introduction to the pagan sources
of Christian ideas, followed by a detailed analysis
of ancient Pagan-Christian numerology."
- - -
Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making
of Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
"I am very selective about books I choose to buy
and display; I prefer those that can really make a
difference or illustrate a method or a new perspective.
Mack's book does an excellent job of debunking
and explaining the Christian myth and deserves
widespread reading. If superstition and myth can
be recognized and understood as such, society
will be strengthened and enriched. It is like the
Emperor's New Clothes - someone has pointed
at the Emperor and written an accessible and
enlightening book on the subject."
- - -
The Jesus Legend, by G.A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693345
"In this forcefully argued book, Wells presents
evidence for the thesis that the New Testament
writings form a part of a developing legendary
tradition concerning the earthly life of Jesus.
Wells engages incisively the works of the most
ardent critics of the mythicist view of Jesus. . .
his critical treatment is nothing less than exemplary."
- - -
Buddha and Christ: Nativity Stories and Indian
Traditions, by Zacharias P. Thundy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9004097414
"The infancy narratives of the gospels of Matthew
and Luke appear as a magnificent mosaic of allusions
not only to the Hebrew Bible but also to Buddhist
and Hindu religious traditions. Professor Thundy
argues that many details of the infancy gospels as
well as the rest of the gospels can be clarified by
the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures."
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oliver Ford
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
> >
> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > >infants?
> >>
> >
> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
I'll just add here that the Indian saviour God Krishna (the name
"Christ" was already used by Krishna and is just the result of several
language translations of the name "Krishna" BTW) was born under a
wicked King who, after Krishna was born ordered the slaying of infants
in an attempt to kill Krishna because the King thought that Krishna
would overthrow him. However, they took Krishna out of the King's
kingdom so he survived.
> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
It will have an explanation in the mythos though I don't know what it
is yet. It is in some stories of Krishna as well.
stoney
<Je...@christ.hvn>, Message ID:
<aal70g$jb9$5...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Verily, verily, "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> sayeth unto
>us:
>
>> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>> > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
>> infants?
>>
>> Nowhere.
>
>Exactly. I'm trying to trap John, though. He can't accept both the bible
>and Josephus as reliable if one contradicts the other.
Sure he can. Why should that be approached differently than the death
of Judas, the tomb, and the rest?
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Jesus Christ
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Jesus Christ
> <Je...@christ.hvn>, Message ID:
> <aal70g$jb9$5...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >Verily, verily, "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> sayeth
> >unto us:
> >
> >> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> >> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth
> >> > unto us: Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to
> >> > slaughter all the
> >> infants?
> >>
> >> Nowhere.
> >
> >Exactly. I'm trying to trap John, though. He can't accept both the
> >bible and Josephus as reliable if one contradicts the other.
>
> Sure he can. Why should that be approached differently than the death
> of Judas, the tomb, and the rest?
<fundy mode>
Unlike the Bible, Josephus is a person and therefore can be errant.
</fundy mode>
In short, his only option is to discount Josephus, a mere human, as
reliable.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
>narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a meaning. "...
>preposterous fabrication, politically and historically naive" ? I think you
>are the one that is being preposterous, politically and historically naive.
>Storytelling in the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the
>Jewish mind
Since the gospel authors weren't Jewish, the gospels aren't the
products of Jewish minds.
>You read
>biblical narratives and you conclude that those who wrote them were
>"politically and historically naive". I don't buy that.
That doesn't really matter, though, does it?
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
Tiger
news:gv61du4dce9ihop82...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:40:50 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book.
>>The narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a
>>meaning. "... preposterous fabrication, politically and
>>historically naive" ? I think you are the one that is being
>>preposterous, politically and historically naive. Storytelling in
>>the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the Jewish
>>mind
>
> Since the gospel authors weren't Jewish, the gospels aren't the
> products of Jewish minds.
Then of what nationality were they? And please provide documentation
to support your answer.
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
stoney
<Je...@christ.hvn>, Message ID:
<aankd3$rqv$5...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Verily, verily, stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> sayeth unto us:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Jesus Christ
>> <Je...@christ.hvn>, Message ID:
>> <aal70g$jb9$5...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >Verily, verily, "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> sayeth
>> >unto us:
>> >
>> >> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> >> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth
>> >> > unto us: Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to
>> >> > slaughter all the
>> >> infants?
>> >>
>> >> Nowhere.
>> >
>> >Exactly. I'm trying to trap John, though. He can't accept both the
>> >bible and Josephus as reliable if one contradicts the other.
>>
>> Sure he can. Why should that be approached differently than the death
>> of Judas, the tomb, and the rest?
>
><fundy mode>
>Unlike the Bible, Josephus is a person and therefore can be errant.
></fundy mode>
Like I indicated. The writers of the bible were people as well.
>In short, his only option is to discount Josephus, a mere human, as
>reliable.
Ah, but he could state Josephus was 'inspired by god...'
Jesus Christ
> >> Sure he can. Why should that be approached differently than the death
> >> of Judas, the tomb, and the rest?
> >
> ><fundy mode>
> >Unlike the Bible, Josephus is a person and therefore can be errant.
> ></fundy mode>
>
> Like I indicated. The writers of the bible were people as well.
And they more than likely had no inspiration by any divine figure
whatsoever. :)
> >In short, his only option is to discount Josephus, a mere human, as
> >reliable.
>
> Ah, but he could state Josephus was 'inspired by god...'
Then God made a mistake. John Boatwright would fall into a quivering mass
if he realized that, but will instead spout off long debunked Creationism
"proof".
stoney
<Je...@christ.hvn>, Message ID:
<aaqhvg$6mh$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Verily, verily, stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> sayeth unto us:
>
>> >> Sure he can. Why should that be approached differently than the death
>> >> of Judas, the tomb, and the rest?
>> >
>> ><fundy mode>
>> >Unlike the Bible, Josephus is a person and therefore can be errant.
>> ></fundy mode>
>>
>> Like I indicated. The writers of the bible were people as well.
>
>And they more than likely had no inspiration by any divine figure
>whatsoever. :)
Of course not, but that won't stop them from making unsupported
claims.... :)
>> >In short, his only option is to discount Josephus, a mere human, as
>> >reliable.
>>
>> Ah, but he could state Josephus was 'inspired by god...'
>
>Then God made a mistake. John Boatwright would fall into a quivering mass
>if he realized that, but will instead spout off long debunked Creationism
>"proof".
Ah...but "god can't make a mistake" shades of "all things that come
from god are good, etc...."
NUNIA
hmmmmm.
Anon
> > "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>
> you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
> The gospels, being religious documents full of
> myth
You are making the statement, please provide the proof, and list them ALL.
> combined with some places and people
> actually around at the time the documents refer
> to, are not considered historical, by any legiti-
> mate (i.e., non-churchified) academics.
Please name them ALL.
> So, what
> else might they be using, do you think, and how
> reliable is it, do you think?
>
> You've already been provided a short list and rea-
> sons why that list does not substantiate a Jesus as
> ever living. You've already been shown the inade-
> quacy of the Josephus scant comments on a Jesus
> and the controversy regarding the interpolations
> likely inherent therein.
>
> Care to share what those academics have to say
> on the matter? Do you think Jesus existed? If you
> do, why do you, what is your core reason for thinking
> Jesus existed, if indeed you do think Jesus existed?
>
> Do you think it's probable and evidential that the gos-
> pel stories were based substantially on an assemblage
> of religions and christs from other religions,
Why do you think that? What other religions? What other christs?
> and that
> a Jesus (or multiple Jesus types) is irrelevant to the key
> issue at hand, that being the faith of christianity based
> on a god existing, a son of a god existing, and that son
> of a god mating the combination of myths
What myths EXACTLY?
> and events
> expressed in the gospels?
>
> If you do think Jesus existed, what do you think he
> did, where was he born, where did he live, how did
> he die, and why do you think he was combined with
> a plethora of myths
Where's the proof to support what you just stated?
> to form the orthodox christian
> faith endorsed by Constantine almost 300 years after
> he died, had he ever really lived?
Make up your mind.
> Be sure to use historically valid information in your
> reply, if you care to address the issue. Also, while
> you're at it, list some doubts the academics you
> cite have regarding the Jesus character as ever existing,
> doubts which they would have to overcome (by guess
> or leap of faith) in order to assert that the character
> existed and what the character was.
>
> Academics (even churchified ones) have often stated
> that they cannot find the historical Jesus.
Please list them ALL.
> Do you agree
> that there is no historical Jesus to be found, that there
> is nothing but a mention of a Jesus and point in fact
> those mentions could easily be explained by the nature
> of the christ mythos present in gnosticism, paganism,
> and other religions popular for centuries prior to the
> writing of the gospel stories?
No. Please explain HOW you arrive at this.
> Vast volumes have been written about this Jesus - how
> much of it is educated guess and how much mere fabri-
> cation, and how much of it applies to a validated histor-
> ical figure and how much to a caricature of what a
> savior-type might have been like based on educated
> guesses, do you think?
You tell me.
> If there is a lot of historical
> guessing going on regarding this Jesus, why do you
> think that is?
On whose opinion?
> Might it have something to do with the mysterious
> academics you mention *wanting* a Jesus to exist,
> rather than using historically valid methods to make
> a convincing case that a Jesus actually existed?
>
> After all, once a myth seeps deeply into a society,
> isn't it tempting to go along with it rather than critically
> address the lack of evidence for the myth being any-
> thing other than a myth?
>
> See muslim societies for reference on bowing to Mecca
> 5 times per day without one iota of evidence that allah
> is anything but myth. It's even written into law and deeply
> entwined with the law, this worship of allah thing, in muslim
> societies. Try bringing up doubt regarding allah or moham-
> med's existence in many muslim societies and it may cost
> you your life or your freedom ...
So aren't you lucky you have nothing physical to fear?
> ... Hearken back to the way it was in the western world
> regarding a Jesus, for over 1,000 years, disbelieve (or
> believe in the 'wrong' way) and it might cost you your
> life or your freedom, and therein resides the seeds for
> the deceit that undergirds the Jesus myth machine that
> keeps pushing the notion that doubt regarding a Jesus
> man is just not de rigueur, regardless of the dearth of
> evidence that anyone remotely resembling the Jesus of
> the gospels ever existed as anything but an assemblage
> of myths placed on an imaginary religious figure and
> the events going on in the day and age the imaginary
> religious figure would have existed, where he anything
> other than imaginary.
Hundreds of millions/(billions?) of people have existed, for which NO proof
exists.
Does that PROVE they didn't exist? There are many people who have only
recently died (think small villages in Asia), where there is NO proof that
they existed, apart from in the testimonies of living witnesses. How would
YOU expect them to produce proof that they had lived? Would you call them
liars because YOU don't SEE any proof? They'd call you insane to disbelieve
them.
Anon.
> ---
> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://danfake.home.att.net
> ---
>
Anon
news:aak122$4is$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote
>
> >his life was nothing like the Biblical Jesus's.
>
> i agree completely, i never said any part of it was true, just that it's
not
> impossible that such a lunatic could have existed (not by biblical
standards
> though)
Anon.
Dan Fake
news:%d9B8.22172$yY7.15...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:L8ez8.56912$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
> > The gospels, being religious documents full of
> > myth
>
> You are making the statement, please provide the proof, and list them ALL.
You want me to list the contents of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John? After all, if Jesus was nothing more
than an assembly of stories from other religions
mixed with a few real folks / places, the entire con-
tents is substantially mythical.
For a liberal theological spin, see "The Jesus Seminar"
which iterates a lot of the myth while still holding to
the claim that a Jesus man existed. Also, reference the
work of liberal theologian (retired Episcopal bishop)
John Spong.
As for the position of disbelievers regarding some of
the specific mythos in the gospels ...
... Here are a few ... referenced as absurdities at the
following site ... as to their mythos, that's self-evident
with the disclaimer that some of the following is more
in the area of contradictions (and criticisms of theology
and gosepel illogic as well as pointing out the anti-natur-
alistic approach of the gospels) ...
---
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/absurdities.htm
---
--- begin excerpts ---
Matthew
The gospel of Matthew begins with a boring genealogy
like that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 ("Neither give
heed to fables and endless genealogies") and Tit.3:9
("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies"). 1:1-17
Judah "went in unto" his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who
was disguised as a prostitute. She conceived and bore
Pharez, an ancestor of Jesus. (Gen.38:2-29) 1:3
There are 29 generations listed from David to Jesus in
Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43.
Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there
are only three names in the two lists that are the same.
1:6-16
The Son of God is led by the Spirit of God to be
tempted by the devil. 4:1
"But if thine eye be evil ...." How can an eye be
evil? 6:23
The devils confess that Jesus is the Son of God.
According to 1 Jn.4:15 ("Whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him,
and he in God"), then, God dwells in the devils and
the devils in God. 8:29
After Jesus kills the herd of pigs by sending devils
into them, the "whole city" asks him to leave. I don't
blame them. 8:34
Jesus gives his disciples "power against unclean spirits,
to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness."
10:1
Jesus tells his disciples to perform all the usual tricks:
"heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and
cast out devils." 10:8
"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven." According
to the gospels (Mt.26:69-75, Mk.14:66-72, Lk.22:55-62,
Jn.15:18-27), Peter denied Jesus three times before men.
Therefore Jesus must have denied Peter before God.
10:33
John the Baptist is still not sure about Jesus (he's in
prison and is soon to die). He sends his disciples to
ask, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another?" Well, if he isn't sure after seeing and hearing
the events at Jesus' baptism, then how can anyone else
be? 11:3
John the Baptist was the greatest man ever to live (even
greater than Jesus), but "he that is least in the kingdom
of heaven is greater than he." 11:11
Jesus believed in the literal truth of the fish story in
Jonah. 12:40
Jesus predicts that he will be "in the heart of the earth"
for three days and three nights. If by this he meant that
he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights,
then either he was mistaken or the gospels are in error.
Because according to the gospels (this is one of the
few things they all seem to agree on), Jesus was in the
tomb for only one day and two nights. 12:40
When an unclean spirit (whatever that may be) leaves
a person's body, he goes out to find another. Not finding
any, he comes back with seven other spirits more wicked
than himself and repossesses the person. 12:43-45
Jesus is rejected by those who know him the best -- the
people of his home town of Nazareth. 13:55-57
Herod thought Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist.
Apparently, it was a common opinion at the time (See
Mt.16.13-14, Mk.6:14-15, 8:27-28, Lk.9:7-8, 18-19). If
so many of Jesus' contemporaries could be so easily
fooled regarding John the Baptist, what does this do
to the credibility of Jesus' resurrection? 14:2
The disciples wonder where they will get the bread to
feed four thousand. But they should know by now,
since Jesus just did the same trick in 14:14-21. These
stories are probably the result of two oral versions of
the same fictitious story. 15:33
Opinions were divided regarding the identity of Jesus,
but many thought that he was the risen John the Baptist.
The fact that people could be so easily fooled regarding
the Baptist's "resurrection" casts doubt on the resur-
rection of Jesus. 16:14
When Peter expressed his dismay when Jesus announced
his coming death, Jesus said to him "Get thee behind me,
Satan" -- a fine way to address his holiness, the first
pope! 16:23
Jesus says that Elijah, whom he believes is John the Baptist,
will come and "restore all things." But what things did John
the Baptist restore? 17:11
If your faith is great enough, you can move mountains
around. 17:20
Jesus tells Peter to pay his taxes with a coin that he'll find
in the mouth of the first fish that he catches from the sea.
17:27
"There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive
it, let him receive it." Dangerous words from a guy who
recommends cutting of body parts if they cause you to
sin (Mt.5:29-30, Mt.18:8-9, Mk.9:43-48). It might make
someone castrate himself so that he could be one of the
144,000 male virgins, who alone will make it to heaven
(Rev.14:3-4). 19:12
Jesus lists the "ten commandments," but his list has only
six, and the sixth is not one of the ten. The commandments
given by Jesus are secular, not religious, in nature. 19:18
Jesus tells his apostles, "ye shall sit upon the twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." I wonder which tribe
Judas is judging? 19:28
Matthew has Jesus ride into Jerusalem sitting on both an
ass and a colt (must have taken some practice!). 21:5-7
If your faith is great enough, then you can move mountains
around. And whatever you ask for your will receive. (O
Lord, won't ya buy me a Mercedes-Benz?) 21:21-22
"Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains."
Why? Can't God find and kill them there, too? 24:16
Jesus says there will be "false Christs" that will "show
great signs and wonders." Well, Jesus himself according
to Acts 2:22 fits this description. 24:24
Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his
blood. 26:26-28
The phrase "unto this day" shows that the gospel of
Matthew was written long after the events it describes.
27:8, 28:15
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the
saints" arose and walked around, appearing to meany
in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died. 27:53-54
Even some of Jesus' apostles doubted that the allegedly
risen Christ was really Jesus. Well if they weren't sure,
how could we ever be? 28:17
Mark
"Unclean spirits" confess that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh. If 1 Jn.4:2 is true, then these "unclean
spirits" are of God. 1:23-24
Jesus rebukes the "unclean spirit" for saying that
Jesus is "the holy one of God." 1:25
Jesus casts out more devils and tells them not to
reveal who he is. 1:32, 34
More "unclean spirits" confess that Jesus is "the
son of God." 1 Jn.4:2 says that all such spirits are
of God. 3:11
Although the disciples weren't sure about Jesus even
after his alleged resurrection, the "unclean spirits" knew
that he was "the son of God." But Jesus told them not
to tell anyone. 3:11-12
Jesus gives his apostles the power to heal sickness and
"cast out devils." 3:15
Jesus' friends think he is insane. 3:21
The scribes think that Jesus casts out devils by the
power of the prince of devils, Beelzebub. 3:22
A man possessed with "an unclean spirit" recognizes
Jesus as the son of God. According to 1 Jn.4:2, 15,
this man must have been "of God." 5:7
Jesus is rejected by those who knew him the best,
the people from his home town of Nazareth. "And
he could do there no mighty work." 6:2-5
There was much disagreement and confusion about
Jesus' identity. Some thought he was Elijah or one
of the prophets. And some (like Herod in this verse)
thought he was the risen John the Baptist, even though
John had just recently died and the people must have
known what he looked like. 6:14-15
Watch out for that "evil eye." 7:22
Jesus puts his fingers in a deaf man's ears, then spits
and touches the deaf man's tongue. 7:33
The disciples ought to know by now where they can
get enough food to feed a few thousand. After all,
Jesus had just done it before (6:34-44). This "doublet"
was probably the result of two oral traditions of the
same event. 8:4
Jesus spits on a blind man's eyes. Why don't tele-
vangelists spit on people when healing them? 8:23
There were various opinions about the identity of Jesus.
Some thought he was Elijah or one of the prophets. And
many thought he was a risen John the Baptist. With cre-
dulity like that just about anyone could later be passed
off as the risen Christ. 8:27-28
Jesus implies that he is neither good nor God. 10:18
If you do "not doubt in your heart" you can cast a moun-
tain into the sea (or kill a fig tree, or whatever). 11:23-24
"In those days ... the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars of heaven shall fall." Of course this is nonsense.
The billions of stars will never fall to earth and the moon
does not produce its own light. 13:24-25
Jesus says that heaven won't last forever. 13:31
Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his
blood. 14:22-24
Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene "out of whom
he had cast seven devils." Now there's a reliable wit-
ness for you. 16:9
The true followers of Christ routinely perform the fol-
lowing tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2)speak in tongues,
3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm,
and 5) cure the sick by touching them. 16:17-18
Luke
The disciples are thrilled that "even the devils are
subject" to them. To this Jesus replies, "I give unto
you power to tread on serpents and scorpions ... and
nothing shall by any means hurt you." Lk.10:17-19
Jesus says that married people cannot go to heaven.
Lk.20:35
Jesus says that everyone will hate Christians, and some
Christians will be killed, yet no Christian will be harmed
in any way. Lk.21:16
--- end excerpts ---
Further elaboration on gospel mythos ...
Do Parts of the Bible Come From Pagan Mythology?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
Key Excerpts:
"... Pagan spirituality in ancient times was composed of two
components:
o The Outer Mysteries consisted of Pagan beliefs and practices
which were widely disseminated and taught to the general public.
Knowledge of these has been preserved in historical records.
o The Inner Mysteries were revealed only to those who had
been initiated into the Pagan religions. The initiates learned that
Osiris-Dionysus was not a historical person. His legends were
simple 'spiritual allegories encoding spiritual teachings.'
---
Late in the 4th century CE, Christianity was established as the
state religion. Pagans were given the choice of converting to
Christianity, being exterminated or being exiled. Their temples
were either stolen for use as Christian churches, or destroyed.
Eventually, detailed knowledge of the inner mysteries was lost.
The core of the Outer and Inner mysteries was a mythical,
male entity who was part god and part human -- often referred
to as a 'godman.' The biographies of these godmen were
consistent from religion to religion. The main difference
among the faiths was his name ...
o Alexandria: Aion
o Asia Minor: Attis
o Babylonia: Antiochus
o Egypt: Osiris
o Greece: Dionysus, Asclepius
o Syria: Adonis
o Italy: Bacchus
o Persia: Mithras
These were viewed as mythical characters. There were also some
self-proclaimed godmen -- humans who actually lived on earth.
Two are:
o Samos, Italy: Pythagoras (569 to circa 475 BCE)
o Sicily: Empedocles (circa 450 to 390 BCE)
---
Osiris in Egypt may have been the first godman. His story has
been found recorded in pyramid texts which were written prior
to 2,500 BCE.
These saviors were truly interchangeable. Coins have been found
with Dionysus on one side and Mithras on the other. A person
who was initiated into one of the mysteries had no difficulty
switching to another Pagan mystery religion.
In the 3rd century CE, these godmen were referred to by the
composite name 'Osiris-Dionysus.' Authors Timothy Freke
and Peter Gandy have used this term in their book 'The Jesus
Mysteries.'
---
Life events shared by Osiris-Dionysus and Jesus:
The following stories appear both in the Gospels and in the
myths of many of the godmen:
Conception:
o God was his father. This was believed to be literally true
in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and
engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of
Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
o A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.
Birth:
o He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that
Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals.
An early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave.
o His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens.
Ministry:
o At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting
water into wine.
o He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town.
o His followers were born-again through baptism in water.
o He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records
that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
o He had 12 disciples.
o He was accused of licentious behavior.
Execution, resurrection, etc:
o He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
o He died 'as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.'
o He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
o After death, he descended into hell.
o On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
o The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female
followers.
o He later ascended to heaven.
His titles:
o God made flesh.
o Savior of the world.
o Son of God.
Beliefs about the Godman:
o He is 'God made man,' and equal to the Father.
o He will return in the last days.
o He will judge the human race at that time.
o Humans are separated from God by original sin. The
godman's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God
and atones for the original sin.
All of the Pagan myths had been circulating for centuries before
Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). It is obvious that if any copying
occurred, it was the followers of Jesus incorporating into his
biography the myths and legends of Osiris-Dionysus, not
vice-versa.
---
Life events shared by Jesus and one other godman:
Some stories appear both in Jesus' biography and in the legends
of a single godman:
Mother's pregnancy:
o It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was
pregnant for only seven months. This legend is preserved in the
Gospel of the Hebrews. Although this gospel was widely used
by early Christians, it was never accepted into the official canon.
Semele, mother of Dionysus, was also believed to have had
a 7 month pregnancy.
Virgin birth:
o Author William Harwood has written that Jesus' "equation
in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysus led
an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now
known as Matthew."
Birth Witnesses:
o The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was visited by an
unknown number of wise men, called Magi.
- Freke & Gandy identify them as followers of the godman
Mithras from Persia.
- Most other sources believe that they were Zoroastrian priests
from Persia who were experts in astrology. There is a Zoroastrian
belief 'that a son of Zoroaster will be born many years after his
death by a virgin...This son will apparantly [sic] raise the dead
and crush the forces of evil. Later Christians got rather excited
about this apparant [sic] pagan prophecy of the coming of the
Messiah...'
o The gospel of Luke records that Jesus was visited by three
shepherds. Mithra the godman from Persia was also visited
shortly after birth by three shepherds.
o The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. A Pagan
belief from the 6th century BCE states that these are the
precise materials to use when worshiping God.
Healing:
o Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the
sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a
Greek godman. Pagans and early Christians debated who
was the more effective healer.
Ministry:
o Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later
transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples.
Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides'
play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.
Miracles:
o Both Jesus and Empedocles were recorded as teaching
spiritual truths, curing illness, foretelling the future, controlling
the wind and rain, and raising people from the dead.
o Both Mithra and Jesus performed many healings of the sick
and mentally ill; both raised the dead.
o Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man
into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and
drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the
sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would
be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and
killed.
Fishing:
o John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which
enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan
Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of
153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as
'the measure of the fish.' That ratio is used to generate
a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish
was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.
Arrest:
o Both celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples
before his death.
o Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae
as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted
against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing
before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors
'You know not what you are doing..,'" almost replicating
Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and
executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.
Crucifixion & resurrection:
o An ancient Greek amulet has been preserved from the
3rd century BCE. It shows a man being crucified on
a Roman cross. The caption reads 'Orpheus Bacchus'
one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus. A photograph
can be seen at Amazon.com:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0722536763.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
o Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh
and aloe. Osiris was also said to have been wrapped in linen
and anointed with myrrh.
Again, the godmen myths had been circulating well before
Jesus birth. The Christians would have copied earlier Pagan
material, not vice-versa.
---
... Freke & Gandy have concluded that the original, main
Christian movement was Gnostic Christianity.
They kept their inner mysteries secret, revealing them only
to those who have been initiated into the faith.
Some early non_Gnostic, 'literalist' Christians were unaware
of the inner mysteries of Gnosticism. They came to accept
the Gnostic outer mysteries and their myth of a godman
savior as an actual description of the historical Jesus. The
literalist Christians, being ignorant of the inner mysteries,
did not realize that the godman story was only a legend
about a mythical being. Decades later, literalist Christianity
became the dominant movement. They oppressed and
exterminated the Gnostics. ..."
--- end excerpts ---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
JonJones
text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
Cute argument technique. An extraordinary claim claim is
made. When someone points out that it is only supported by
myths, you respond, "name them all." Doesn't work that way,
and you surely know that.
> Hundreds of millions/(billions?) of people have existed, for which NO proof
> exists.
> Does that PROVE they didn't exist? There are many people who have only
> recently died (think small villages in Asia), where there is NO proof that
> they existed, apart from in the testimonies of living witnesses. How would
> YOU expect them to produce proof that they had lived? Would you call them
> liars because YOU don't SEE any proof? They'd call you insane to disbelieve
> them.
Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
else.
Tiger
news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
The evidence exists...if you ignore or dismiss it, that's your
choice...but claiming "no evidence" is intellectually dishonest.
Beyond that, your statement that the evidence for someone who claimed
to be the son of God should be "over and beyond the evidence for the
existence of anyone else" is simply without basis. Why should this
be the case?
Anon
news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <%d9B8.22172$yY7.155870429@news-
> text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
>
> Cute argument technique. An extraordinary claim claim is
> made. When someone points out that it is only supported by
> myths, you respond, "name them all." Doesn't work that way,
> and you surely know that.
Nonsense. He made claims without supporting proof. People like him want
christians to give proof, but think themselves exempt when they claim the
opposite. Typically hypocritical.
> > Hundreds of millions/(billions?) of people have existed, for which NO
proof
> > exists.
> > Does that PROVE they didn't exist? There are many people who have only
> > recently died (think small villages in Asia), where there is NO proof
that
> > they existed, apart from in the testimonies of living witnesses. How
would
> > YOU expect them to produce proof that they had lived? Would you call
them
> > liars because YOU don't SEE any proof? They'd call you insane to
disbelieve
> > them.
>
> Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
> god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
> could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
> over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
> else.
In situations like this, you rely on witnesses, and their reliability. When
the bible says don't lie and you say in effect that the eye witnesses were
liars, you'd be laughed out of court. The christians of the time didn't die
for a LIE, they died for the TRUTH. How many people do you think would
willingly die for a lie? The evidence is in the witnesses too, but you
conveniently ignore that.
Furthermore, the christian claims about you needing Jesus as your savior can
quite easily be proven, do the following:
Ask Jesus to save you & tell him you will follow him in terms of the bible
if he does so.
If you believe he doesn't exist, nothing will happen, so you lose nothing by
trying this.
On the other hand, since he exists, the onus is then on him to reveal
himself to you and save you.
Anon.
JonJones
j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
> > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
> > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
> > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
> > over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
> > else.
> >
>
> The evidence exists...if you ignore or dismiss it, that's your
> choice...but claiming "no evidence" is intellectually dishonest.
And why do folk on these newsgroups have such a hard time
finding corroborating evidence?
> Beyond that, your statement that the evidence for someone who claimed
> to be the son of God should be "over and beyond the evidence for the
> existence of anyone else" is simply without basis. Why should this
> be the case?
Probably for the same reason we have little or no evidence
of Caesar's valet, but lots for Caesar. In other words, you
are claiming the most important person ever born - to you -
was such a non-event that there would be no evidence.
Obviously, there should be a great deal of evidence.
JonJones
text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> > In article <%d9B8.22172$yY7.155870429@news-
> > text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
> >
> > Cute argument technique. An extraordinary claim claim is
> > made. When someone points out that it is only supported by
> > myths, you respond, "name them all." Doesn't work that way,
> > and you surely know that.
>
> Nonsense. He made claims without supporting proof. People like him want
> christians to give proof, but think themselves exempt when they claim the
> opposite. Typically hypocritical.
He wants Christians to give proof, because they are making
the extraordinary claim. He is not making a claim, the
people who claim Jesus existed are making the claim. He is
merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for
their claim. This is similar to you making the claim that
aliens made the pyramids, and asking everyone else to list
all the reasons and theories otherwise. Not the way logic
works.
...
> > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
> > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
> > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
> > over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
> > else.
>
> In situations like this, you rely on witnesses, and their reliability. When
> the bible says don't lie and you say in effect that the eye witnesses were
> liars, you'd be laughed out of court.
Nice, but the people writing the gospels were not "eye
witnesses". That is the problem. Not to mention that "eye
witness" testimony is probably the weakest evidence in
court.
> The christians of the time didn't die
> for a LIE, they died for the TRUTH. How many people do you think would
> willingly die for a lie?
People will die for what they believe. What they believe
may be objectively untrue, but that is irrelevant if the
people believe it is true. Do you think the Sept. 11
attackers went to the heavenly reward they were promised?
Do you think what they believe is right? Doesn't matter,
does it, as they believe it.
> The evidence is in the witnesses too, but you
> conveniently ignore that.
No, you are apparently completely ignoring the fact they
weren't eye witnesses. Ergo, there is no evidence - eye
witness or otherwise.
> Furthermore, the christian claims about you needing Jesus as your savior can
> quite easily be proven, do the following:
> Ask Jesus to save you & tell him you will follow him in terms of the bible
> if he does so.
> If you believe he doesn't exist, nothing will happen, so you lose nothing by
> trying this.
> On the other hand, since he exists, the onus is then on him to reveal
> himself to you and save you.
And that little exercise is going to "prove" it how? So you
feel better when you do this. That is not proof. And just
what is he "saving" you from? God's mistakes?
Tiger
news:MPG.173f5f464...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns92059F4CF2...@24.93.67.42>,
> j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
>> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>> > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
>> > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
>> > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person, over
>> > and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone else.
>> >
>>
>> The evidence exists...if you ignore or dismiss it, that's your
>> choice...but claiming "no evidence" is intellectually dishonest.
>
> And why do folk on these newsgroups have such a hard time
> finding corroborating evidence?
What kind of evidence do you seek?
>
>> Beyond that, your statement that the evidence for someone who
>> claimed to be the son of God should be "over and beyond the
>> evidence for the existence of anyone else" is simply without
>> basis. Why should this be the case?
>
> Probably for the same reason we have little or no evidence
> of Caesar's valet, but lots for Caesar. In other words, you
> are claiming the most important person ever born - to you -
> was such a non-event that there would be no evidence.
I made no such claim. I simply indicated that expecting that there
*should* be a great deal of evidence makes no sense. Jesus was a
poor itinerant preacher/teacher who traveled with a bunch of poor
fishermen in a country that was occupied by Rome. At best his
ministry lasted 3 years. In fact, he *should* have been long
forgotten. But he was not. Why not? Why has he become the most
famous person in history? Is it a conspiracy, do you think?
> Obviously, there should be a great deal of evidence.
"Obviously" there is...you simply choose to dismiss it.
Tiger
news:MPG.173f83ef1...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
> In article <8EgB8.22692$Rp1.159246399@news-
> text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
>> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
>> > In article <%d9B8.22172$yY7.155870429@news-
>> > text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
>> >
>> > Cute argument technique. An extraordinary claim claim is
>> > made. When someone points out that it is only supported by
>> > myths, you respond, "name them all." Doesn't work that way, and
>> > you surely know that.
>>
>> Nonsense. He made claims without supporting proof. People like
>> him want christians to give proof, but think themselves exempt
>> when they claim the opposite. Typically hypocritical.
>
> He wants Christians to give proof, because they are making
> the extraordinary claim. He is not making a claim, the
> people who claim Jesus existed are making the claim. He is
> merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for
> their claim. This is similar to you making the claim that
> aliens made the pyramids, and asking everyone else to list
> all the reasons and theories otherwise. Not the way logic
> works.
Speaking of "not the way logic works..." Your analogy fails for one
important *logical* reason. There is absolutely no reason to believe
that aliens built the pyramids. Your analogy would work if there was a
2000 year-old tradition of alien-builders...but there isn't.
You say that Christians' claim that Jesus existed is "extraordinary."
How is this more extraordinary than claiming he didn't exist? The
evidence is pretty clear that claiming Jesus was "made up" is the
extraordinary claim.
Or, speaking of extraordinary claims, how about claiming that humans
evolved from a puddle of sludge? Now *that's* extraordinary...though
many people would make such a claim...and without any evidence.
The fact of the matter is that you believe in *theories.* Are they
reasonable? Some would appear to be so...but only time will tell. It
also seemed reasonable at one time to believe the earth was flat. The
best scientists in the world all believed such a thing...at one time.
Human knowledge is limited...something we are reminded of daily. We
continue to discover that what we *thought* were scientific *facts*
are, oftentimes, not. What scientific "facts" will be proven wrong
tomorrow? In twenty years?
Eric Gill
news:Xns9205DBB3D4...@24.93.67.42:
Appeal to Popularity. Fallacy.
That a lot of people believe(d) is evidence that a lot of people believe
(d). Nothing more.
> You say that Christians' claim that Jesus existed is "extraordinary."
> How is this more extraordinary than claiming he didn't exist?
In the light of no unambiguous, contemporary supporting evidence, it's
actually the most reasonable conclusion.
> The
> evidence is pretty clear that claiming Jesus was "made up" is the
> extraordinary claim.
What evidence would this be?
<snip red herring>
Eric Gill
news:Xns9205D6572C...@24.93.67.42:
> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.173f5f464...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>> In article <Xns92059F4CF2...@24.93.67.42>,
>> j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
>>> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>>> > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
>>> > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
>>> > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person, over
>>> > and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone else.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The evidence exists...if you ignore or dismiss it, that's your
>>> choice...but claiming "no evidence" is intellectually dishonest.
>>
>> And why do folk on these newsgroups have such a hard time
>> finding corroborating evidence?
>
> What kind of evidence do you seek?
Objective, contemporaneous evidence that actually supports the existance
of a Jeshua ben Mirriam who fits some amount of the things claimed for
him by Xtian scripture and tradition.
We are not looking for evidence of believers. Their existance is not
what's being argued.
>>> Beyond that, your statement that the evidence for someone who
>>> claimed to be the son of God should be "over and beyond the
>>> evidence for the existence of anyone else" is simply without
>>> basis. Why should this be the case?
>>
>> Probably for the same reason we have little or no evidence
>> of Caesar's valet, but lots for Caesar. In other words, you
>> are claiming the most important person ever born - to you -
>> was such a non-event that there would be no evidence.
>
> I made no such claim. I simply indicated that expecting that there
> *should* be a great deal of evidence makes no sense. Jesus was a
> poor itinerant preacher/teacher who traveled with a bunch of poor
> fishermen in a country that was occupied by Rome. At best his
> ministry lasted 3 years. In fact, he *should* have been long
> forgotten. But he was not. Why not?
What incredible, selectively incredulous hogwash.
It may be unlikely for a single religious figure to be remembered for
such a period; it is utterly certain that some will be.
If you are impressed by the age of the claim, then you should be more
impressed by a rather long list of dieties that predate it by thousands
of years.
> Why has he become the most
> famous person in history? Is it a conspiracy, do you think?
Of the same sort as any of the great religions.
>> Obviously, there should be a great deal of evidence.
>
> "Obviously" there is...you simply choose to dismiss it.
Actually, you'd have to post it before this alleged "evidence" could be
dismissed. Are you planning on doing so?
JonJones
j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
> It
> also seemed reasonable at one time to believe the earth was flat. The
> best scientists in the world all believed such a thing...at one time.
And just when was that? Sometime in the last 2300 years?
You throw out this homily - let's see some evidence.
Tiger
news:Xns9205D2C3622CE...@24.28.95.190:
<sigh> It's not an appeal to "popularity." A long standing
tradition, including many well-educated and extremely intelligent
individuals, is evidence that something beyond a "mass delusion" is
occurring.
>
> That a lot of people believe(d) is evidence that a lot of people
> believe (d). Nothing more.
In a vacuum, maybe.
>
>> You say that Christians' claim that Jesus existed is
>> "extraordinary." How is this more extraordinary than claiming he
>> didn't exist?
>
> In the light of no unambiguous, contemporary supporting evidence,
> it's actually the most reasonable conclusion.
>
Only if one dismisses the evidence.
>> The
>> evidence is pretty clear that claiming Jesus was "made up" is the
>> extraordinary claim.
>
> What evidence would this be?
See above.
No herring there to snip, btw...all applicable to the argument.
Dismiss the evidence if you choose...but it's not logical...and you
won't make it so by saying it over and over.
Tiger
> Tiger <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9205D6572C...@24.93.67.42:
>
>> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.173f5f464...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>>> In article <Xns92059F4CF2...@24.93.67.42>,
>>> j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
>>>> JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in
>>>> news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
>>>> > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
>>>> > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
>>>> > over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
>>>> > else.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The evidence exists...if you ignore or dismiss it, that's your
>>>> choice...but claiming "no evidence" is intellectually
>>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>> And why do folk on these newsgroups have such a hard time
>>> finding corroborating evidence?
>>
>> What kind of evidence do you seek?
>
> Objective, contemporaneous evidence that actually supports the
> existance of a Jeshua ben Mirriam who fits some amount of the
> things claimed for him by Xtian scripture and tradition.
>
There's no such thing as "objective" evidence. If you believe there
is, you're more brainwashed than you've ever thought Christians to
be.
> We are not looking for evidence of believers. Their existance is
> not what's being argued.
>
>>>> Beyond that, your statement that the evidence for someone who
>>>> claimed to be the son of God should be "over and beyond the
>>>> evidence for the existence of anyone else" is simply without
>>>> basis. Why should this be the case?
>>>
>>> Probably for the same reason we have little or no evidence
>>> of Caesar's valet, but lots for Caesar. In other words, you
>>> are claiming the most important person ever born - to you - was
>>> such a non-event that there would be no evidence.
>>
>> I made no such claim. I simply indicated that expecting that
>> there *should* be a great deal of evidence makes no sense. Jesus
>> was a poor itinerant preacher/teacher who traveled with a bunch
>> of poor fishermen in a country that was occupied by Rome. At
>> best his ministry lasted 3 years. In fact, he *should* have been
>> long forgotten. But he was not. Why not?
>
> What incredible, selectively incredulous hogwash.
I agree. To dismiss the evidence is selective hogwash.
>
> It may be unlikely for a single religious figure to be remembered
> for such a period; it is utterly certain that some will be.
Only those who exhibit something more than "magical" tricks.
>
> If you are impressed by the age of the claim, then you should be
> more impressed by a rather long list of dieties that predate it by
> thousands of years.
They lived before the age of Enlightenment. Do you deny we've
increased our knowledge since then? Yet, the "myth" continues.
Hmmm...
>
>> Why has he become the most
>> famous person in history? Is it a conspiracy, do you think?
>
> Of the same sort as any of the great religions.
Then your inability to debunk it says more about you than the
religion.
>
>>> Obviously, there should be a great deal of evidence.
>>
>> "Obviously" there is...you simply choose to dismiss it.
>
> Actually, you'd have to post it before this alleged "evidence"
> could be dismissed. Are you planning on doing so?
>
It cannot be posted. Even if it could, you would not accept it
because it doesn't conform to your criteria. Here's a
clue...empiricism does not measure all that exists. To think
otherwise is to be utterly arrogant and quite foolish.
Tiger
news:MPG.173fae26b...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
You cannot receive it. It is not measured by empiricism.
JonJones
j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
> > In the light of no unambiguous, contemporary supporting evidence,
> > it's actually the most reasonable conclusion.
> >
> Only if one dismisses the evidence.
>
> >> The
> >> evidence is pretty clear that claiming Jesus was "made up" is the
> >> extraordinary claim.
> >
> > What evidence would this be?
>
> See above.
>
> No herring there to snip, btw...all applicable to the argument.
> Dismiss the evidence if you choose...but it's not logical...and you
> won't make it so by saying it over and over.
>
You still have provided no evidence. Or was this supposed
to be evidence: "A long standing tradition, including many
well-educated and extremely intelligent individuals, is
evidence that something beyond a "mass delusion" is
occurring"? If so, you still have provided no evidence.
Or, is everyone just supposed to believe you that there is
"contemporary supporting evidence"? If it exists, why can
you not cite it?
Tiger
news:MPG.173fceae4...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
Answered in another post.
Dan Fake
Appeal to the unknown does not justify believing
in something merely because you want it to be true,
for immortal life and all that entails in the form of
participation in the religious club/churches that go
by the name christian. 'Tis why you are tempted
to believe in the Jesus of christianity and why you're
not tempted to bow to Mecca 5 times per day - you
would need evidence that Jesus was a prophet, as
iterated in the quran, that Jesus existed as the quran
and its supporters claim, as a follower of allah, in
order to switch faiths.
You don't believe he was a prophet, as iterated in
the quran. In essence, you lack the empirical evidence,
and the social/cultural support, and the icon for the
unknown (the christian god / baby Jesus) which was
and is treated as real (even within cultural traditions)
rather than make believe ever since your were a child,
to justify believing in the Jesus of islam merely based
on a religious document. Hence, you disbelieve in the
Jesus of islam just as all other non-muslims disbelieve
in such a Jesus.
When you understand why you disbelieve in Jesus as
supposed by muslims, you'll be well on your way to
understanding why non-christians disbelieve in Jesus
as supposed by christians. But, you'll have more work
ahead of you. Here's another clue.
Ask yourself if you are an evemerist regarding Jesus,
based on the evidence regarding how the winning
christian religion was created by fans of the orthodox
version of christianity almost 300 years after Jesus
died, had he ever really lived. Ask yourself if Jesus
is a religious creation rather than a man of import,
and if a religious creation, try to ponder the evidence
as if you were analyzing evidence for a man, rather
than for a god.
It's difficult for you to do, because you've been taught
that belief in Jesus as described in the gospels is re-
quired for your immortal salvation, with a consequence
of disbelief (or doubt) being risk of oblivion or immortal
damnation.
Once you buy into that notion, your ability to be objec-
tive as pertains to the evidence regarding the pagan/gnostic
and other sources for the Jesus gospel myths is quite chal-
lenging for you.
See how that formula, placed in the mind of a child, is
a form of brainwashing that's difficult to expunge, just
as allah and mohammed and the allah-worshipping Jesus
prophet, placed in the minds of muslim children, is diffi-
cult for them to expunge?
> To think otherwise is to be utterly arrogant and quite foolish.
Does evemerism explain your Jesus as well as the
origins of orthodox christianity, simply chosen be-
cause of the support of Constantine to establish a
Roman christianity that would unite the empire, and
based on that decision, the winner of the christ con-
test was chosen by humans for reasons far removed
from objective analysis?
---
Evemerism (050102)
http://freelover.home.att.net/history/evemerism.htm
"... Evemerism, named after Evemeras, a 4th
Century B.C.E. Greek philosopher who devel-
oped the idea that, rather than being mytholog-
ical creatures as was accepted by the reigning
intellectuals, the gods of old were in fact historical
characters, kings, emperors and heroes whose
exploits were then deified. ..."
---
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Anon
> In article <8EgB8.22692$Rp1.159246399@news-
> text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
> > JonJones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.173f52321...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> > > In article <%d9B8.22172$yY7.155870429@news-
> > > text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
> > >
> > > Cute argument technique. An extraordinary claim claim is
> > > made. When someone points out that it is only supported by
> > > myths, you respond, "name them all." Doesn't work that way,
> > > and you surely know that.
> >
> > Nonsense. He made claims without supporting proof. People like him want
> > christians to give proof, but think themselves exempt when they claim
the
> > opposite. Typically hypocritical.
>
> He wants Christians to give proof, because they are making
> the extraordinary claim.
Christians are proof.
> He is not making a claim, the
> people who claim Jesus existed are making the claim. He is
> merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for
> their claim. This is similar to you making the claim that
> aliens made the pyramids, and asking everyone else to list
> all the reasons and theories otherwise. Not the way logic
> works.
> ...
>
> > > Right. And how many of them do you claim were the "son of
> > > god" coming to save the souls of the world. In short, one
> > > could reasonably expect some evidence for such a person,
> > > over and beyond the evidence for the existence of anyone
> > > else.
> >
> > In situations like this, you rely on witnesses, and their reliability.
When
> > the bible says don't lie and you say in effect that the eye witnesses
were
> > liars, you'd be laughed out of court.
>
> Nice, but the people writing the gospels were not "eye
> witnesses". That is the problem. Not to mention that "eye
> witness" testimony is probably the weakest evidence in
> court.
What you are saying is that ALL the witnesses, beginning obviously with the
eye witnesses, are unreliable.
It is STILL acceptable, especially if they are trustworthy witnesses.
> > The christians of the time didn't die
> > for a LIE, they died for the TRUTH. How many people do you think would
> > willingly die for a lie?
>
> People will die for what they believe. What they believe
> may be objectively untrue, but that is irrelevant if the
> people believe it is true. Do you think the Sept. 11
> attackers went to the heavenly reward they were promised?
> Do you think what they believe is right? Doesn't matter,
> does it, as they believe it.
Wrong.
You know that John F Kennedy was murdered in 1963. This is a fact. Now
suppose there was a law that stated that anybody who said Kennedy was NOT
dead, be tortured and put to death. You are asked if Kennedy is alive or
dead. You say he is alive, KNOWING that he is dead? Would YOU do this? Of
course you wouldn't, you wouldn't die for a LIE. Likewise the early
Christians who were eye witnesses of Christ and his resurrection.
> > The evidence is in the witnesses too, but you
> > conveniently ignore that.
>
> No, you are apparently completely ignoring the fact they
> weren't eye witnesses. Ergo, there is no evidence - eye
> witness or otherwise.
Where do you get this from? Of course there were eye witnesses of Christ.
Apart from that, you are saying for all reporting, unless someone is an eye
witness, they are unreliable.
What about the reliabilty of those relaying information?
> > Furthermore, the christian claims about you needing Jesus as your savior
can
> > quite easily be proven, do the following:
> > Ask Jesus to save you & tell him you will follow him in terms of the
bible
> > if he does so.
> > If you believe he doesn't exist, nothing will happen, so you lose
nothing by
> > trying this.
> > On the other hand, since he exists, the onus is then on him to reveal
> > himself to you and save you.
>
> And that little exercise is going to "prove" it how? So you
> feel better when you do this. That is not proof.
It's perhaps like trying to describe parachuting. It's best if you try it
yourself. You don't want to accept the experience of those who have done it,
nor do you want to try it yourself. Basically, your argument is that because
YOU haven't experienced it, it is not possible.
Anon.
Anon
You have disregarded ALL those who were once sceptics or non-believers -
like yourself - but who have accepted christ. Are they ALL delusional/liars
whatever?
Anon.
JonJones
text.cableinet.net>, anon@anon..not says...
> You have disregarded ALL those who were once sceptics or non-believers -
> like yourself - but who have accepted christ. Are they ALL delusional/liars
> whatever?
And you have disregarded every point he made. Points that
you obviously cannot answer.
Dan Fake
No. Anyone can believe. Even muslims can become
christians and christians can become muslims. It's
the exception, rather than the rule, however. Once
you cross the line from skepticism / doubt to belief,
your ability to objectively analyze the information
regarding the faith at issue degrades appreciably due
to your vested interest in immortality, your fear of
damnation, and the socialization-connections made
(via the club / faith / church / mosque you've joined)
based on said belief.
Belief is based on suspension of doubt, not on con-
sideration of naturalistic explanations, on ancient
superstitions, not on reasonable assessments of that
which we now know (which the ancients did not know)
and that which we are still researching / exploring /
discovering.
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
JonJones
> > He wants Christians to give proof, because they are making
> > the extraordinary claim.
>
> Christians are proof.
Certainly, but "proof" of what? Obviously they are not
"proof" of the truth or falsity of their beliefs.
...
> > Nice, but the people writing the gospels were not "eye
> > witnesses". That is the problem. Not to mention that "eye
> > witness" testimony is probably the weakest evidence in
> > court.
>
> What you are saying is that ALL the witnesses, beginning obviously with the
> eye witnesses, are unreliable.
> It is STILL acceptable, especially if they are trustworthy witnesses.
Such testimony, may be acceptable, but it is still very
weak evidence. You are no doubt aware of the rising number
of men convicted of rape now being freed from prison
because the "objective" evidence of DNA showed the eye
witnesses wrong.
You ignored the point that the writers were not "eye
witnesses." But, this digresses from the fact that there
is no other evidence except for bogus "eye witness"
testimony.
> > > The christians of the time didn't die
> > > for a LIE, they died for the TRUTH. How many people do you think would
> > > willingly die for a lie?
> >
> > People will die for what they believe. What they believe
> > may be objectively untrue, but that is irrelevant if the
> > people believe it is true. Do you think the Sept. 11
> > attackers went to the heavenly reward they were promised?
> > Do you think what they believe is right? Doesn't matter,
> > does it, as they believe it.
>
> Wrong.
> You know that John F Kennedy was murdered in 1963. This is a fact. Now
> suppose there was a law that stated that anybody who said Kennedy was NOT
> dead, be tortured and put to death. You are asked if Kennedy is alive or
> dead. You say he is alive, KNOWING that he is dead? Would YOU do this? Of
> course you wouldn't, you wouldn't die for a LIE. Likewise the early
> Christians who were eye witnesses of Christ and his resurrection.
First, I am not wrong. You give an example of knowing
something is a lie and ask would people die for it. I
stated that the people believe.
Then, "Likewise the early Christians who were eye witnesses
of Christ and his resurrection." Is this proof by constant
assertion? The evidence - shown in many threads on these
newsgroups - is that they were not eyewitnesses.
But, consider this. What people have asked - ignoring the
issue of whether or not they were eyewitnesses - is there
any other evidence for Jesus. You don't seem to have dealt
with that.
In fact, you seem to be studiously avoiding that.
> > > The evidence is in the witnesses too, but you
> > > conveniently ignore that.
> >
> > No, you are apparently completely ignoring the fact they
> > weren't eye witnesses. Ergo, there is no evidence - eye
> > witness or otherwise.
>
> Where do you get this from? Of course there were eye witnesses of Christ.
What is this, "proof by circular argument". If Christ
didn't exist, "Of course there were [no] eye witnesses of
Christ".
> Apart from that, you are saying for all reporting, unless someone is an eye
> witness, they are unreliable.
> What about the reliabilty of those relaying information?
No. What evidence is there other than your purported "eye
witness" evidence?
> > And that little exercise is going to "prove" it how? So you
> > feel better when you do this. That is not proof.
>
> It's perhaps like trying to describe parachuting. It's best if you try it
> yourself. You don't want to accept the experience of those who have done it,
> nor do you want to try it yourself. Basically, your argument is that because
> YOU haven't experienced it, it is not possible.
No, I don't use the latest designer drugs either. It isn't
best if I try it myself. And my experience is irrelevant.
My argument is that if you cannot provide objective
evidence, you cannot claim something is true. You obviously
would claim that you have to experience 3rd degree burns to
accept that sunburn can be painful.
Anon
<snip>
> > > Does evemerism explain your Jesus as well as the
> > > origins of orthodox christianity, simply chosen be-
> > > cause of the support of Constantine to establish a
> > > Roman christianity that would unite the empire, and
> > > based on that decision, the winner of the christ con-
> > > test was chosen by humans for reasons far removed
> > > from objective analysis?
> >
> > You have disregarded ALL those who were once sceptics or non-believers -
> > like yourself - but who have accepted christ. Are they ALL
delusional/liars
> > whatever?
>
> No. Anyone can believe. Even muslims can become
> christians and christians can become muslims. It's
> the exception, rather than the rule, however. Once
> you cross the line from skepticism / doubt to belief,
> your ability to objectively analyze the information
> regarding the faith at issue degrades appreciably due
> to your vested interest in immortality, your fear of
> damnation, and the socialization-connections made
> (via the club / faith / church / mosque you've joined)
> based on said belief.
So you are saying a christian must disregard his/her own experience because
it interferes with impartiality?
> Belief is based on suspension of doubt, not on con-
> sideration of naturalistic explanations, on ancient
> superstitions, not on reasonable assessments of that
> which we now know (which the ancients did not know)
> and that which we are still researching / exploring /
> discovering.
Belief could be considered a bridge between what is now not known with that
which will be.
Anon.
JonJones
j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com says...
> >>> And why do folk on these newsgroups have such a hard time
> >>> finding corroborating evidence?
> >>
> >> What kind of evidence do you seek?
> >
> > Objective, contemporaneous evidence that actually supports the
> > existance of a Jeshua ben Mirriam who fits some amount of the
> > things claimed for him by Xtian scripture and tradition.
> >
> There's no such thing as "objective" evidence. If you believe there
> is, you're more brainwashed than you've ever thought Christians to
> be.
There certainly is evidence such that the interpretation
does not depend upon individual interpretation. Take DNA
evidence, for example. Every person viewing such evidence
can agree on whether a DNA sample excludes an individual.
...
> > Actually, you'd have to post it before this alleged "evidence"
> > could be dismissed. Are you planning on doing so?
> >
> It cannot be posted. Even if it could, you would not accept it
> because it doesn't conform to your criteria. Here's a
> clue...empiricism does not measure all that exists. To think
> otherwise is to be utterly arrogant and quite foolish.
And, just tell us what kind of things exist that empiricism
cannot measure. But, of course, you couldn't post that
evidence either.
But ignoring that statement, one gets to the crux of the
matter. The evidence does not exist in this world. In
short, you admit there is no evidence in this world
whatsoever for Jesus.
Finally, the truth is told.