The Bible proved right again.
Maggsy
<davidmaggs2000@yahoo.com>Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus therefore
the Bible is a book of Myths. I argued then that absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.The argument from silence is a logical
fallacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Now archaeological evidence has turned up from the time of Jesus.Now
I'm not suggesting( let me clarify this because skeptics seem very
good at misunderstanding what I am saying and reading some thing more
into what I am saying than what I am actually saying) that this proves
that Jesus lived their or that it proves he was the Son of God. It
does proves that Atheists have been lieing again and have been proved
wrong again.
Remains of a house from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth
-- the first discovery of its kind in the place where he grew up,
Israel's Antiquities Authority said on Monday 21st of December 2009.
Israel finds remains of Jesus-era home in Nazareth Parents of captured
Israeli soldier plead for his release Egypt's intel chief meets top
Israeli officials Related Hot Topic: Israel Have your say: Israel
Archaeologists did not draw any direct link between the Nazareth
dwelling and Jesus. His mother Mary's childhood home, many Christian
faithful believe, was a cave over which Nazareth's imposing Church of
the Annunciation now stands.
Yardenna Alexandre, who directed a dig near the church, said it
exposed the walls of a first-century house that consisted of two rooms
and a courtyard.
"The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the
very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth,"
Alexandre said in a statement issued by the Antiquities Authority.
"The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely
typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period," she said.
"Until now, a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in
Nazareth, however no settlement remains had been discovered that were
attributed to this period."
Alexandre described Nazareth, now Israel's largest Arab city with a
population of some 65,000, as a "small hamlet" during Jesus's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091221/twl-uk-israel-jesus-bd5ae06.html
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 21, 8:16 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well will skeptics ever learn. Many time's I have been told on this
> Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus
I've never seen anyone say that. Can you provide a cite?
> therefore
> the Bible is a book of Myths.
That's because it contains myths - like the Adam and Eve, the Flood -
that invoke the supernatural.
> I argued then that absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence.The argument from silence is a logical
> fallacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
Right. And archeology is only evidence that people exist, not that God
exists.
So, by your logic, since Mount Olympus exists then Zeus and all the
other Greek gods must exist too. Since the ruins of Troy exist then
there was a giant cyclops that on a Greek island and ate sailors, and
there were sirens - half bird, half woman - that beckoned ships to the
rocks. And the Raven brought humans into existence by dropping a clam
onto the rocky shores of the Pacific Northwest, because ravens and
clams exist.
You've got your fallacies confused.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
>
> Now archaeological evidence has turned up from the time of Jesus.
It's been there all along. And from the time of Beowulf, and the Halle-
Bopp comet, and Krishna. The list is endless.
The real problem here is that you're using natural objects as evidence
that supernatural objects exist.
> Now
> I'm not suggesting( let me clarify this because skeptics seem very
> good at misunderstanding what I am saying and reading some thing more
> into what I am saying than what I am actually saying) that this proves
> that Jesus lived their or that it proves he was the Son of God. It
> does proves that Atheists have been lieing again and have been proved
> wrong again.
Please provide the cite in which atheists said "that Nazareth didn't
exist at the time of Jesus." And even if you can, it doesn't
necessarily mean they were lying; it could simply mean that they were
wrong.
And you also mention that atheists "have been proved wrong again." I'm
curious - where else have atheists been "proved wrong"?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1392379.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> atheism isnt wrong, or right ...
Atheism is the right (rational) position to take due to the complete
absence of valid evidence for God (or "spirit energy" as you have
renamed it). But for your reference, it was "Maggsy" who said that
atheists "have been proved wrong again," not me.
Your policy of not reading posts before you respond to them sure seems
to backfire on you a lot.
> > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1392379.html-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>obviously lost its meaning in your attempt to analyze it. surely you
dont think atheism is right because it disbelieves in something that
someone else believes in? atheism means ...i aint believing in 'god'
cuz i know nothing about 'god' ... period ....there is neither
anything right, nor wrong about that stance.
> > > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1392379.html-Hidequoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> it doesnt matter who said it.
> it was a general statement that
> obviously lost its meaning in your attempt to analyze it.
> surely you
> dont think atheism is right because it disbelieves in something that
> someone else believes in?
No, but that's a misrepresentation of atheism in the first place.
Atheism is right because it is the lack of religious belief. I lack
religious belief because you haven't provided sufficient evidence for
me to believe your religious claims. That's the rational ("right")
position to take.
> atheism means ...i aint believing in 'god'
> cuz i know nothing about 'god' ... period
Argument by assertion fallacies aren't evidence that atheism is
whatever you declare it is. Technically, atheism is just the lack of
religious belief. Your continuing policy of ignorance, to not learn
from others, is still intact.
>....there is neither
> anything right, nor wrong about that stance.
I see a lot wrong with that stance. It's the stance you promote,
really; it's a stance of ignorance. How can I know if my atheism is
justified if I don't find out about God/god/spirit energy?
> > > > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1392379.html-Hidequotedtext -
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> On Dec 21, 8:16 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well will skeptics ever learn. Many time's I have been told on this
> > Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus
>
> I've never seen anyone say that. Can you provide a cite?
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/96d557d39f26b99c
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/b6d9dc85671af6bb
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/0515df6cb4b95dd3
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/b643182403876946
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/66f70f382a4dc31d
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/b6cc6a87fbc2f449
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
The existence of Nazareth proves nothing. It does answer an argument
that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 21, 4:20 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 8:16 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well will skeptics ever learn. Many time's I have been told on this
> > > Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus
>
> > I've never seen anyone say that. Can you provide a cite?
>
Thanks.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>belief, or lack thereof, right. once you accept that you dont know,
you may still think your decision is right, but what does that mean in
regards to whether 'god' exists or not? zippo, nadda, zilch... but if
you are happy in your [dis]belief, great!!! ;^-)
> > > > > >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1392379.html-Hidequote...-
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 21, 5:21 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it may be the right decision to make for you, but it doesnt make your
> belief, or lack thereof, right. once you accept that you dont know,
It's the right stance for everybody, since there's no valid evidence
for any god/spirit energy. The agitated bleatings of delusional
narcissists like you is not valid evidence.
> you may still think your decision is right, but what does that mean in
> regards to whether 'god' exists or not?
Shifting the burden of proof for your 'god' on to me is not evidence
that your 'god' exists, so atheism is still the right position to
take.
> zippo, nadda, zilch... but if
> you are happy in your [dis]belief, great!!! ;^-)
I am, thanks. Now do something useful and go get some valid evidence
for your wild claims.
cori gale
<pacal123@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
Cori Gale
semi
<seminole10003@gmail.com>> On Dec 21, 5:21 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it may be the right decision to make for you, but it doesnt make your
> > belief, or lack thereof, right. once you accept that you dont know,
>
> It's the right stance for everybody, since there's no valid evidence
> for any god/spirit energy. The agitated bleatings of delusional
> narcissists like you is not valid evidence.
Except it's not delusional but warranted. Argument from ignorance does
not make you rational. Ignoring evidence is one area because you are
ignorant in other areas does not make you rational at all. Indeed
atheists are irrational and should be institutionalized.
> > you may still think your decision is right, but what does that mean in
> > regards to whether 'god' exists or not?
>
> Shifting the burden of proof for your 'god' on to me is not evidence
> that your 'god' exists, so atheism is still the right position to
> take.
Wrong. Atheism is the WRONG position to take in the context of
rationality. The proof of causality exists, and there must be a self-
existent first cause.....as soon as you deny that, all rationality is
gone. Then your claims to providing proof of a specific form of theism
is not going to help you once you deny a fundamental law of reason.
philosophy
<smwilson@tpg.com.au>On Dec 22, 12:32 pm, cori gale <pacal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Welcome to AvC - it's nice to have an archaeologist on board.
Be prepared to get your brains picked.
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>On Dec 22, 2:12 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 5:21 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it may be the right decision to make for you, but it doesnt make your
> > > belief, or lack thereof, right. once you accept that you dont know,
>
> > It's the right stance for everybody, since there's no valid evidence
> > for any god/spirit energy. The agitated bleatings of delusional
> > narcissists like you is not valid evidence.
>
> Except it's not delusional but warranted. Argument from ignorance does
> not make you rational. Ignoring evidence is one area because you are
> ignorant in other areas does not make you rational at all. Indeed
> atheists are irrational and should be institutionalized.
>
> > > you may still think your decision is right, but what does that mean in
> > > regards to whether 'god' exists or not?
>
> > Shifting the burden of proof for your 'god' on to me is not evidence
> > that your 'god' exists, so atheism is still the right position to
> > take.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is the WRONG position to take in the context of
> rationality. The proof of causality exists,
Where???
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>> Well will skeptics ever learn. Many time's I have been told on this
> Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus therefore
> the Bible is a book of Myths. I argued then that absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence.The argument from silence is a logical
> fallacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
>
> Now archaeological evidence has turned up from the time of Jesus.Now
> I'm not suggesting( let me clarify this because skeptics seem very
> good at misunderstanding what I am saying and reading some thing more
> into what I am saying than what I am actually saying) that this proves
> that Jesus lived their or that it proves he was the Son of God. It
> does proves that Atheists have been lieing again and have been proved
> wrong again.
One house does not a village make. Nor is there any evidence that
this, or any other village anywhere in Galilee was known as 'Nazareth'
in the first century CE. It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that
this proves the Bible right.
semi
<seminole10003@gmail.com>> Where???
The fact that this topic exists proves causality.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 21, 7:12 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 5:21 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it may be the right decision to make for you, but it doesnt make your
> > > belief, or lack thereof, right. once you accept that you dont know,
>
> > It's the right stance for everybody, since there's no valid evidence
> > for any god/spirit energy. The agitated bleatings of delusional
> > narcissists like you is not valid evidence.
>
> Except it's not delusional but warranted.
It's not warranted since there's no valid evidence for his claims.
> Argument from ignorance does not make you rational.
Nor does it make me irrational, that's why it's called an argument
from ignorance.
Not believing something when there's no valid evidence for it is what
makes me rational.
> Ignoring evidence is one area because you are
> ignorant
I'm not ignoring evidence. I'm just not being presented with any
evidence that's valid. Valid evidence is objective, verifiable, and
falsifiable. Testimonials do not fit that criteria.
> in other areas does not make you rational at all. Indeed
> atheists are irrational and should be institutionalized.
And you just illustrated why theocracies fail - it's a slippery slope
from putting a Christian in charge to another Inquisition.
Congratulations, you just put yourself in the same category as Hitler.
If I were in charge I wouldn't do that to you. You ought to be ashamed
of what you just said.
> > > you may still think your decision is right, but what does that mean in
> > > regards to whether 'god' exists or not?
>
> > Shifting the burden of proof for your 'god' on to me is not evidence
> > that your 'god' exists, so atheism is still the right position to
> > take.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is the WRONG position to take in the context of
> rationality. The proof of causality exists, and there must be a self-
> existent first cause.....
So you keep asserting, unconvincingly. And even if there is a "first
cause," it certainly would not have to be God. In fact, the most
complex thing imaginable would not be the first thing to exist - that
defies the natural laws. Complex beings have to evolve. Your religious
fantasies are absurd. So atheism is the right stance, due to
insufficient evidence for God's existence.
> as soon as you deny that, all rationality is
> gone.
Poisoning the well fallacies are about as unconvincing as your
arguments from assertion.
> Then your claims to providing proof of a specific form of theism
> is not going to help you once you deny a fundamental law of reason.
It is not up to me to "prove" theism since I am not making any
theistic claims - e_space is.
Steve in Virginia
<chandler2368@hotmail.com>Steve
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>No, that establishes that some humans under some circumstances have a
perception of causality. A much less grandiose conceit than your
sweeping claims to have a proof for an intelligent creator of
universes.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 21, 7:23 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 11:31 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
>
> The existence of Nazareth proves nothing.
Precisely! :)
> It does answer an argument
> that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
I do admit that there is another camp of people who skew the truth in
a desperate attempt to discount Christianity altogether. This is
indeed counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. The truth is
sufficient for anyone to make informed decisions about things.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 21, 9:32 pm, cori gale <pacal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an archaeologist
Welcome! Your professional input will be valued here :)
> I have a lot of problems with biblical archaeology.
> Biblical archaeologists, or amateurs, trying to find evidence to support the
> bible will already find what they are looking for because they are biased.
> They have an idea of what they're trying to find. Were there settlements
> in and around Nazareth? Of course there were. One of the earliest
> civilizations, Sumeria at about 5300 B.C. started the whole 'cradle of
> civilization' way before the time of Jesus. I don't think there would be
> any credible archaeologist that would not think there are settlements in and
> around nazareth the time before, around, and after jesus. What I love about
> archaeology is the tangible data it gives. Sure the 'absence of evidence'
> doesn't instantly mean that the thing being sought after doesn't exist at
> all, but it's a hell of a stretch to say since we haven't found any hard,
> credible evidence of the existence of god, therefore he must exist. I'm not
> going to say science isn't as dogmatic as religion, since humans are part of
> each endeavor,
Wait, wait, wait.... what definition of "dogma" are you using that
makes science "dogmatic", precisely?
I use this one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma
"a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a
church: the dogma of the Assumption."
What tenet or doctrine is "authoritatively" laid down in science?
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>I'm just curious why you would say that. The issue usually comes up when some Christians make the claim that the Bible is historically accurate.
It can't be historically accurate when it contradicts itself on the facts and when it's claims are contradicted archaeologically.
I'm not speaking directly to whether Nazareth exists or not since all I know about the issue is that others do make the claim that it didn't exist.
I'm speaking to your general comments.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
--
-------------------------
Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet." ~Joseph Joubert
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Dec 21, 9:14 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> You mean it isn't?!
LL: Of course it is, Rapp, you're being silly.
*************************
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>One building does not a village make.
It could have been a building that was built for the people who
oversaw the cemetery that is known to have been in use during the
frist century at the Nazareth location.
You should also remember that Jewish people, like most cultures, did
not build villages next to cemeteries. In fact, Jewish people made
sure their villages were quite a distance from their cemeteries.
This is why it is argued that Nazareth as it is known today, was built
a little later, probably sometimes during the third century, well
after the cemetery stopped being used and was forgotten.
Archelogy, so far, cannot suport the fact that thbere was as
uubstatitla vilage at teh nazareth locatin as described in the bible.
In fact, the fact that Jesus is allegedly from Nazareth is probably
due to a cock up by monks mistranslating "Nazarene", which does not
mean "from Nazareth."
> "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the
> very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth,"
> Alexandre said in a statement issued by the Antiquities Authority.
>
> "The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely
> typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period," she said.
>
> "Until now, a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in
> Nazareth, however no settlement remains had been discovered that were
> attributed to this period."
See?
There is no way that Jewish people built a viallge on top of a
cemetery (or right next to it) if they knew the cemetery was there,
as they did as evidenced by the fact that the tombs date from the
first century.
____________________________________________
Use against heretics the spiritual sword of excommunication, and if
this does not prove effective, use the material sword.
-- Pope Innocent III
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> > Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
>
> The existence of Nazareth proves nothing. It does answer an argument
> that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
but it does not prove such a thing.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> You should also remember that Jewish people, like most cultures, did
> not build villages next to cemeteries. In fact, Jewish people made
> sure their villages were quite a distance from their cemeteries.
>
> This is why it is argued that Nazareth as it is known today, was built
> a little later, probably sometimes during the third century, well
> after the cemetery stopped being used and was forgotten.
It seems difficult for a cemetery to be forgotten. Would it be
possible for there to be no sign of a site having been a cemetery?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>On Dec 22, 1:11 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:23 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
>
> > The existence of Nazareth proves nothing. It does answer an argument
> > that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
>
> It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
> but it does not prove such a thing.
I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>On Dec 23, 8:36 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 1:11 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 7:23 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
>
> > > The existence of Nazareth proves nothing. It does answer an argument
> > > that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
>
> > It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
> > but it does not prove such a thing.
>
> I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
> little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34511072/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
The archaeological evidence establishes that the site of modern-day
Nazareth was inhabited at the beginning of the first century CE, and
probably even earlier. It does not establish that the name "Nazareth"
was linked to the place at the time.
To my mind it seems just as likely that some Christian pilgrims showed
up in Jerusalem in the third century, and asked the way to Jesus'
birthplace. Then some quick-thinking touts renamed a likely-looking
hamlet as "Nazareth" in order to cater to the burgeoning tourist
trade.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>That kind of illustrates a major difference in the way we read the
Bible, I generally accept it as true unless there is a good reason
not too. And you seem only to accept anything in it as being true if
it can be verified from outside the text. Do you apply the same
default disbelief to all 'histories'?
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>Now we're getting way off track.
My position is that excavating a first century house in modern-day
Nazareth does nothing to either confirm or deny the Biblical accounts
of Jesus' birth. All we know about ancient Nazareth from the NT is
that it was a tiny town somewhere in Galilee. There are probably
hundreds of ancient sites that could equally well fit the bill,
presuming that there ever was such a place. I would be much more
impressed by a contemporary reference to Nazareth than any number of
ancient homes.
Secondly, my default position on 'histories' that rely entirely on a
single source of unknown provenance is to consider them unreliable,
not to consider them untrue. I'm prepared to allow that unreliable
accounts may be true, but why should I accept them over competing
explanations? Even when those competing explanations (like my sharp-
operating tourist guides above) are just speculation on my part, given
what I know about human nature?
Skeptic
<kkylheku@gmail.com>> Well will skeptics ever learn. Many time's I have been told on this
When will... times not time's.
> Newsgroup that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus
therefore
[n]ewsgroup.
> the Bible is a book of Myths.
The Bible is a hodgepodge of myths, with some distorted versions of
historic events thrown in.
> I argued then that absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence.
But it's damn near freaking.
There is a complete absence of evidence that there is a pack of pink
elephants covered with blue polkadots living in Antarctica.
I just made that up, but believe me! You have no evidence of absence!
Statements that are indistinguishable from a fabrication are a
fabrication, and a fabrication is always false, even if by some
amazing coincidence it appears to fit the world.
Suppose that someone does discover a pack of such elephants in
Antarctica. That doesn't change the fact that I made them up; it was
complete bullshit when coming from me; the animals I was describing do
not coincide with the actual ones found. They are only coincidentally
similar.
> The argument from silence is a logical
> fallacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
You're a moron.
> I'm not suggesting( let me clarify this because skeptics seem very
> good at misunderstanding what I am saying and reading some thing more
> into what I am saying than what I am actually saying) that this proves
> that Jesus lived their or that it proves he was the Son of God.
Then what are you saying? If Jesus lived, but was not the Son of God,
that is completely useless to the theistic position.
It completely doesn't matter whether or not there existed a character
similar to Jesus, at aroudn the same time, and even having the same
name, the same history of leadership and whatnot.
There isn't any evidence that such a character could walk on water,
turn water into wine, feed hordes of people with a few loaves of
bread, or rise from the dead.
> It
> does proves that Atheists have been lieing again and have been proved
> wrong again.
"lying"
> Remains of a house from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth
Wow, people actually lived in houses at the time of Jesus, so one of
the these structures was dug up! Amazing!
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>Christians seem to apply such default disbeliefs to all mythologies
other than the ones in the Bible. In the Mahabharata, the virgin Kunti
had a son by the god Surya. Do Christians believe by default that
both Biblical and Hindu virgin birth accounts are historically
accurate? The world was flooded in Greek mythology too. Do Christians
believe that both the Noah & family flood and the Deukalion and Pyrrha
flood are historically accurate?
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 22, 12:15 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 7:23 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 11:31 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is the existence of London evidence for the existence of Harry Potter?
>
> > > The existence of Nazareth proves nothing.
>
> > Precisely! :)
>
> > > It does answer an argument
> > > that some use to discredit the NT accounts that mention the village.
>
> > I do admit that there is another camp of people who skew the truth in
> > a desperate attempt to discount Christianity altogether. This is
> > indeed counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. The truth is
> > sufficient for anyone to make informed decisions about things.
>
> I'm just curious why you would say that. The issue usually comes up when
> some Christians make the claim that the Bible is historically accurate.
>
> It can't be historically accurate when it contradicts itself on the facts
> and when it's claims are contradicted archaeologically.
>
> I'm not speaking directly to whether Nazareth exists or not since all I know
> about the issue is that others do make the claim that it didn't exist.
>
> I'm speaking to your general comments.
I think there is a slightly biased "backlash" that I see fairly often
where people deny very well-established features of history and
archaeology to "over-deny" the existence of Jesus and Biblical claims.
As OldMan was stating, there is often a group of people who even deny
the existence of settlements that are consistent with being
"Nazareth", but such opinions aren't terribly well-informed. Of course
there were settlements in that period, at that time! But so what? It
doesn't give any credibility to the Bible whatsoever. There's no need
to "over-deny" historicity. Even the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
is seldom disputed in modern academic circles (interested in the
historical events, not the theological implications). I don't have a
lot of historical background aside from hobby, but it seems to me that
the existence of Jesus as a person is well-triangulated by historical
reference and the modern consensus is that he existed. But again, so
what? Just because people thought he was a god doesn't mean any more
than people thinking that Julius Caesar was a god. We all know that
just because one mythology is more popular (today) than the other
means nothing.
We should take care to not "over-deny" things. The truth is sufficient
for the arguments :).
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Ah. Okay. I understand now.
Yes, it's true that does happen.
It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized historical fact.
It is true that the Christus existed for example and they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been Jesus.
That has been independently verified.
His existence doesn't make him divine nor does it make the claims of miracles true, etc.
I'm even willing to accept the NT texts as potential historical documents but only if all the biblical texts including the Gnostic texts, etc. are accepted.
So, if I was a historian it would be all or nothing.
That is, either everything requires independent verification or, if we want to use the biblical texts to verify each other than none can be excluded on theological grounds. If exclusion occurs it would have to be standard grounds like strong suspicion of forgery or some such thing.
Thanks for the clarification. I was a little confused there. Lol.
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> -------------------------
> Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he
> knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no
> feet." ~Joseph Joubert
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
ornamentalmind
<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example and
they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
accepting them as plain fact.
On Dec 23, 9:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > > --
> > > -------------------------
> > > Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he
> > > knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> > > Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no
> > > feet." ~Joseph Joubert
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> -------------------------
> Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he
> knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no
> feet." ~Joseph Joubert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Just to clarify one thing since the links OldMan posted include a discussion between Maggsy and me on this topic.
I was referring in that discussion to what I call the Biblical Jesus and not the historical character which was the leader of the Christus.
I have also learned (since that discussion) that Josephus does indicate that this leader was crucified and that part of Josephus is not considered a forgery.
This was something that I didn't know at the time.
I'm not going to reread the thread but to the best of my recollection part of the problem was that Maggsy didn't clarify which parts of Josephus he was referring to nor did he provide references which explained what he was referring to.
If he had, I would have learned something new in that discussion and would have happily conceded the point.
<snipped>
--
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>“…It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized
historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example andJesus. That has been independently verified.” – TG
they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
accepting them as plain fact.
You've missed my point.
The independent verification is Josephus who independently verifies that a group of people existed who were called Christus and these people had a leader who was crucified.
This verifies that Christians existed and their leader was crucified.
It's as much a historical fact as any other historical fact.
It doesn't verify the existence of the Biblical Jesus for which there is no evidence whatsoever and that is the point I was making in my previous discussion with Maggsy.
Where I was wrong in my previous discussion with Maggsy was that I wasn't aware, at that time, that Josephus referred to the Crucifixion and that reference was not considered a forgery.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
ornamentalmind
<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>and directly associated to a specific mythology entirely misses the
historical evidence that the practice was legion at that time and in
numerous cultures to boot. So, any such reference holds no sway at all
as I see it.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction
On Dec 23, 10:06 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Of course the fact that crucifixion today is seen as something unique
and directly associated to a specific mythology entirely misses the
historical evidence that the practice was legion at that time and in
numerous cultures to boot. So, any such reference holds no sway at all
as I see it.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction
Yes. Absolutely.
In fact, I found a reference at one point (and I haven't been able to find it again) which stated that Pilate was Crucifying everybody under the sun to point where he was called to task by the Romans and apparently he was crucifying so many people that he didn't bother to keep records of all of them.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>“…It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized
historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example andJesus. That has been independently verified.” – TG
they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
accepting them as plain fact.
There is a consensus amongst historians that the following is considered historical fact:
1. The Christus existed as a group.
2. The leader of the Christus was crucified.
3. The Romans didn't like the Christus.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
ornamentalmind
<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quo_Vadis_(novel)
Talk about crucifixions! Roadways were littered with crosses and
pillories of all shapes and sizes! More even than the number of
associated symbols known today!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross#Etymology
On Dec 23, 10:17 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<nity%25252Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to
> > men he
> > > > > knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> > > > > Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but
> > no
> > > > > feet." ~Joseph Joubert
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
ornamentalmind
<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>how ‘Christians’ fixed that ‘problem’!!!
On Dec 23, 10:17 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<nity%25252Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to
> > men he
> > > > > knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> > > > > Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but
> > no
> > > > > feet." ~Joseph Joubert
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Eventually we'll do that.
Why don't you start a thread if you have some knowledge in that area?
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>
> > > > It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
> > > > but it does not prove such a thing.
>
> > > I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
> > > little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34511072/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
>
> > The archaeological evidence establishes that the site of modern-day
> > Nazareth was inhabited at the beginning of the first century CE, and
> > probably even earlier. It does not establish that the name "Nazareth"
> > was linked to the place at the time.
>
> > To my mind it seems just as likely that some Christian pilgrims showed
> > up in Jerusalem in the third century, and asked the way to Jesus'
> > birthplace. Then some quick-thinking touts renamed a likely-looking
> > hamlet as "Nazareth" in order to cater to the burgeoning tourist
> > trade.
>
> That kind of illustrates a major difference in the way we read the
> Bible, I generally accept it as true unless there is a good reason
> not too. And you seem only to accept anything in it as being true if
> it can be verified from outside the text. Do you apply the same
> default disbelief to all 'histories'?
You question would only be valid if the bible was a "history". It is
not.
Since you think that any ancient text is a "history", do you doubt any
of the events in the "Iliad"?
_____________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are assuming that cemeteries back then in that location were
similar to the ones we have today.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> > “…It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized
> > historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example and
> > they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
> > Jesus. That has been independently verified.” – TG
>
> > Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
> > read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
> > Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
> > archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
> > the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
>
> > I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
> > at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
> > things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
> > accepting them as plain fact.
>
> You've missed my point.
>
> The independent verification is Josephus who independently verifies that a
> group of people existed who were called Christus and these people had a
> leader who was crucified.
>
> This verifies that Christians existed and their leader was crucified.
Nope. It confirms that Josephus heard about people who claimed that
their leader had been crucified, period.
> It's as much a historical fact as any other historical fact.
It is not.
> It doesn't verify the existence of the Biblical Jesus for which there is no
> evidence whatsoever and that is the point I was making in my previous
> discussion with Maggsy.
>
> Where I was wrong in my previous discussion with Maggsy was that I wasn't
> aware, at that time, that Josephus referred to the Crucifixion and that
> reference was not considered a forgery.
Even if we could prove that Josephus himslef wrote about that, he was
still writing about what others were telling him. He was not a first
hand witness, and neither were those who made the claims he allegedly
heard.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Dec 23, 10:06 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have also learned (since that discussion) that Josephus does
indicate that
this leader was crucified and that part of Josephus is not considered
a
forgery.
LL: As far as I can determine, Josephus was repeating hearsay. He
offered no personal testimony or independent verification. To me, it's
not a lot different than a journalist writing that some people in New
Mexico claim that a flying saucer from outer space landed in Roswell--
without a shred of evidence as to anything beyond hearsay.
Josephus was born 37 years after the "birth" of Jesus. By the time he
would have been writing it was at least 57 years after the purported
birth and after Jesus was supposed to have died. He was writing
"history" based on things that were purported to have happened long
before Jesus would have been born and for which Josephus had nothing
more to base it on than hearsay.
If anyone can refute that, I'd be glad to hear it.
************************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Dec 23, 10:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > “…It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized
> > historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example and
> > they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
> > Jesus. That has been independently verified.” – TG
>
> > Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
> > read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
> > Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
> > archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
> > the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
>
> > I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
> > at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
> > things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
> > accepting them as plain fact.
>
> You've missed my point.
>
> The independent verification is Josephus who independently verifies that a
> group of people existed who were called Christus and these people had a
> leader who was crucified.
>
> This verifies that Christians existed and their leader was crucified.
LL: I don't think so. It verifies that a group of people claimed that
Jesus existed and was crucified. That is all.
>
> It's as much a historical fact as any other historical fact.
LL: But saying the speculations of a group of people about anything is
a historical fact is reaching and misleading, IMO. There is no
corroborating evidence that Jesus existed or was crucified, only
hearsay. That there were people who THOUGHT that was a fact is a
different thing altogether and doesn't speak to the veracity of the
event. Someday a historian might state that people in the 21st century
thought Obama was born in Kenya. THAT fact can be corroborated. But
unless some evidence beyond people's speculation can be corroborated,
it will remain undocumented hearsay--just like the writings of
Josephus about Jesus.
*********************************************
**************************
*************************************************
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<nity%25252Bunsub scr...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to
> > men he
> > > > > knows to be idiots." -- H.L. Mencken.
>
> > > > > Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but
> > no
> > > > > feet." ~Joseph Joubert
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>On Dec 23, 10:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>LL: I don't think so. It verifies that a group of people claimed that
> > “…It can be taken too far with a refusal to accept even recognized
> > historical fact. It is true that the Christus existed for example and
> > they had a leader who was crucified and whose name may have been
> > Jesus. That has been independently verified.” – TG
>
> > Wow! Now I wonder where I have been all of these years. From having
> > read Josephus in the 50s and about his ‘Teachers of Light’ as well as
> > Jesus’s who had brothers etc. to attempting to keep up with
> > archeological finds and other historical evidence, I entirely missed
> > the above mentioned ‘historical fact’ being ‘independently verified’.
>
> > I don’t mean to derail this thread but am just amazed and awe struck
> > at such a notion! While I do see the advantage to accepting such
> > things as being ‘factual’ for debate purposes, I have great difficulty
> > accepting them as plain fact.
>
> You've missed my point.
>
> The independent verification is Josephus who independently verifies that a
> group of people existed who were called Christus and these people had a
> leader who was crucified.
>
> This verifies that Christians existed and their leader was crucified.
Jesus existed and was crucified. That is all.
People who held Christian beliefs wrote the Bible. That, in and of itself proves that Christians existed.
Josephus independently confirmed that *and* the crucifixion of their leader.
Conflating the Biblical Jesus who cannot be proven to have existed with the historical figure that lead the Christus and who very likely did exist is a problem that comes up continuously in this debate and is the source of a huge amount of confusion.
Accepting Josephus statements is as realistic as accepting anything else out of these ancient texts which we do accept and consider part of the historical record.
And on those facts, from the reading I've done, there is consensus amongst historians on the points:
1. Christus sect existed.
2. Their leader was crucified.
3. The Romans had a problem with the Christus.
I have no problem accepting those points either.
However, to claim that is proof for the existence of Biblical Jesus is wrong.
Its not.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 23, 12:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course! This is all part-and-parcel of "Biblical scholarship" from
a historical standpoint.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I was a little confused there. Lol.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> I have also learned (since that discussion) that Josephus does indicate that
> this leader was crucified and that part of Josephus is not considered a
> forgery.
>
> This was something that I didn't know at the time.
How did anyone get the idea that he was killed and hanged on a tree?
(would the following mean killed first and hanged after death?)
Acts 10
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010&version=KJV
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with
power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed
of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land
of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Yeshu and his five
disciples. Here, Yeshu is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to
apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for
forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he
is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named
Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is
made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned
that leniency could not be applied because of Yeshu's influence with
the royal government (malkhut). In the Florence manuscript of the
Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that
Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Fair enough but that combined with other factors is considered to be enough to accept the points I made by historians and result in a consensus.
There really isn't any reason to even try to refute them.
We know Christians existed. They wrote many different versions of their Bible. And whether the Christians today accept the Gnostics as Christians or not is quite irrelevant from a historical standpoint because they were all part of the Christian "movement".
So why question Josephus statements at all? The one's that are questioned are the one's that are suspected of being forgeries.
Frankly a lot of history from that era is hearsay based on writings of people like Josephus.
If historians independently verify a single fact they tend to accept it when it comes to these ancient documents.
How strong the acceptance is, is determined by how often it's independently verified, whether it was likely to be first hand and a lot of other factors but it's not rejected out of hand when that confirmation exists.
Lots of people were crucified by Pilate. From what I can tell it appeared to be a favorite past time of his.
Accepting that the leader of the Christus was crucified is no big deal.
It was nothing special frankly and it doesn't give credence to the story that he was divine, rose from the dead etc.
The Romans say the Christians gave them grief and it indicates in the Bible that there were conflicts between the Romans and the Christians.
How does accepting that make one iota of difference to our arguments.
It doesn't make the Bible true on everything just because a couple of things are true and have been independently verified.
Nor does it even support claims that the Jesus as described in the Bible existed.
And frankly, even if the Bible *was* discovered to be completely historically accurate(not likely given the blatant contraditions on "facts") and someone proved it, would it mean that Jesus was divine and God exists?
Of course not.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>On Dec 23, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:How did anyone get the idea that he was killed and hanged on a tree?
> I have also learned (since that discussion) that Josephus does indicate that
> this leader was crucified and that part of Josephus is not considered a
> forgery.
>
> This was something that I didn't know at the time.
I have no idea since what I read in the translation of Josephus simply used the word crucifixion (assuming I'm recalling this correctly since it was a while ago) and I don't believe Josephus specified what it meant.
If you have the answer to the question why don't you just tell us.
(would the following mean killed first and hanged after death?)
Acts 10
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010&version=KJV
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with
power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed
of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land
of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Yeshu and his five
disciples. Here, Yeshu is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to
apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for
forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he
is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named
Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is
made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned
that leniency could not be applied because of Yeshu's influence with
the royal government (malkhut). In the Florence manuscript of the
Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that
Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Isn't that the way these discussions usually go ;-)
>
> My position is that excavating a first century house in modern-day
> Nazareth does nothing to either confirm or deny the Biblical accounts
> of Jesus' birth.
And I am fully in agreement with you there.
> All we know about ancient Nazareth from the NT is
> that it was a tiny town somewhere in Galilee. There are probably
> hundreds of ancient sites that could equally well fit the bill,
> presuming that there ever was such a place. I would be much more
> impressed by a contemporary reference to Nazareth than any number of
> ancient homes.
>
> Secondly, my default position on 'histories' that rely entirely on a
> single source of unknown provenance is to consider them unreliable,
How many sources are needed to be considered reliable?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have also learned (since that discussion) that Josephus does indicate
> > that
> > > this leader was crucified and that part of Josephus is not considered a
> > > forgery.
>
> > > This was something that I didn't know at the time.
>
> > How did anyone get the idea that he was killed and hanged on a tree?
>
> I have no idea since what I read in the translation of Josephus simply used
> the word crucifixion (assuming I'm recalling this correctly since it was a
> while ago) and I don't believe Josephus specified what it meant.
>
> If you have the answer to the question why don't you just tell us.
There might have been multiple competing legends about his unfortunate
and untimely demise. In one legend, he might have been killed by Jews
in which case his body might have been hanged from a tree. In another
legend, he might have been killed by Romans using a Roman method of
execution such as crucifixion.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> On Dec 22, 8:16 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
> > > > > but it does not prove such a thing.
>
> > > > I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
> > > > little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
>
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34511072/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
>
> > > The archaeological evidence establishes that the site of modern-day
> > > Nazareth was inhabited at the beginning of the first century CE, and
> > > probably even earlier. It does not establish that the name "Nazareth"
> > > was linked to the place at the time.
>
> > > To my mind it seems just as likely that some Christian pilgrims showed
> > > up in Jerusalem in the third century, and asked the way to Jesus'
> > > birthplace. Then some quick-thinking touts renamed a likely-looking
> > > hamlet as "Nazareth" in order to cater to the burgeoning tourist
> > > trade.
>
> > That kind of illustrates a major difference in the way we read the
> > Bible, I generally accept it as true unless there is a good reason
> > not too. And you seem only to accept anything in it as being true if
> > it can be verified from outside the text. Do you apply the same
> > default disbelief to all 'histories'?
>
> You question would only be valid if the bible was a "history". It is
> not.
It is, at least in part.
> Since you think that any ancient text is a "history",
You really don't know what I think, do you.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 22, 4:27 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You should also remember that Jewish people, like most cultures, did
> > > not build villages next to cemeteries. In fact, Jewish people made
> > > sure their villages were quite a distance from their cemeteries.
>
> > > This is why it is argued that Nazareth as it is known today, was built
> > > a little later, probably sometimes during the third century, well
> > > after the cemetery stopped being used and was forgotten.
>
> > It seems difficult for a cemetery to be forgotten. Would it be
> > possible for there to be no sign of a site having been a cemetery?
>
> You are assuming that cemeteries back then in that location were
> similar to the ones we have today.
What were they like, then?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Of course the fact that crucifixion today is seen as something unique
> > and directly associated to a specific mythology entirely misses the
> > historical evidence that the practice was legion at that time and in
> > numerous cultures to boot. So, any such reference holds no sway at all
> > as I see it.
>
> >http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
>
> In fact, I found a reference at one point (and I haven't been able to find
> it again) which stated that Pilate was Crucifying everybody under the sun to
> point where he was called to task by the Romans and apparently he was
> crucifying so many people that he didn't bother to keep records of all of
> them.
Other than a reference on a pillar, all we know about Pilate came from
Christian and Jewish sources. And we all know how unreliable they
are. ;-)
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>"Reliability" isn't a binary state, at least in this context, but a
continuum. The more corroborating sources, the greater the level of
confidence.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>On Dec 23, 10:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Other than a reference on a pillar, all we know about Pilate came from
> > Of course the fact that crucifixion today is seen as something unique
> > and directly associated to a specific mythology entirely misses the
> > historical evidence that the practice was legion at that time and in
> > numerous cultures to boot. So, any such reference holds no sway at all
> > as I see it.
>
> >http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
>
> In fact, I found a reference at one point (and I haven't been able to find
> it again) which stated that Pilate was Crucifying everybody under the sun to
> point where he was called to task by the Romans and apparently he was
> crucifying so many people that he didn't bother to keep records of all of
> them.
Christian and Jewish sources. And we all know how unreliable they
are. ;-)
What Onan said. Lol.
I really wish I could find that reference because I believe there was actually another source.
However, it seems to have been pulled from the site for some reason.
Perhaps it wasn't accurate. I don't know.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
JohnN
<jnorris53@hotmail.com>archaeological journals. BTW, were the Egyptians keeping the Israeli
solder captive in the house?
JohnN
On Dec 21, 11:16 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>
> Now archaeological evidence has turned up from the time of Jesus.Now
...
> Remains of a house from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth
> -- the first discovery of its kind in the place where he grew up,
> Israel's Antiquities Authority said on Monday 21st of December 2009.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> Josephus was born 37 years after the "birth" of Jesus.
37CE/AD, that is. We don't know how long before that Jesus was born.
> By the time he
> would have been writing it was at least 57 years after the purported
> birth
About 75 CE, 79 years after the most well accepted date of Jesus'
birth.
The Jewish War written about 75
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Wars
Antiquities of the Jews (Antiquitates Judaicae in Latin) was a work
published by the important[1] Jewish historian Flavius Josephus about
the year 93 or 94.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>So if you had 4 sources that mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth,
what level of confidence would that give you?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> So if you had 4 sources that mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth,
> what level of confidence would that give you?
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene.- Matthew 2:23
Has anyone claimed that Matthew 2:23, unlike other parts of Matthew,
wasn't authored till the 3rd century? If not, does anyone have a
hypothesis as to how the author of Matthew 2:23 was able to think of a
city called Nazareth if there was no such city? BTW, there's no
prophecy in the Old Testament saying "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Might this prophecy, perhaps, be in a Jewish book (such as Enoch or
Jubilees) that didn't make it into the Old Testament?
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>Well, if two of the sources were obviously derivative from one of the
other four (Matthew and Luke being derivative from Mark), that
immediately reduces to two sources.
If the remaining source (John) simply describes a man known as "Jesus
of Nazareth", but never indicates whether Nazareth is a town, a
region, or simply a family or loose political grouping (especially
given that the language of the source doesn't have articles or
prepositions) then I'm not at all confident.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> Well The difference Jesus is King of King and the Son of God...
Kunti's son too was son of God. So, that is a commonality, not a
difference.
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:19 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 8:16 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 22, 3:25 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 23, 8:36 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
> > > > > little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34511072/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
>
> > > > The archaeological evidence establishes that the site of modern-day
> > > > Nazareth was inhabited at the beginning of the first century CE, and
> > > > probably even earlier. It does not establish that the name "Nazareth"
> > > > was linked to the place at the time.
>
> > > > To my mind it seems just as likely that some Christian pilgrims showed
> > > > up in Jerusalem in the third century, and asked the way to Jesus'
> > > > birthplace. Then some quick-thinking touts renamed a likely-looking
> > > > hamlet as "Nazareth" in order to cater to the burgeoning tourist
> > > > trade.
>
> > > That kind of illustrates a major difference in the way we read the
> > > Bible, I generally accept it as true unless there is a good reason
> > > not too. And you seem only to accept anything in it as being true if
> > > it can be verified from outside the text. Do you apply the same
> > > default disbelief to all 'histories'?
>
> > Christians seem to apply such default disbeliefs to all mythologies
> > other than the ones in the Bible. In the Mahabharata, the virgin Kunti
> > had a son by the god Surya. Do Christians believe by default that
> > both Biblical and Hindu virgin birth accounts are historically
> > accurate? The world was flooded in Greek mythology too. Do Christians
> > believe that both the Noah & family flood and the Deukalion and Pyrrha
> > flood are historically accurate?
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of many sources. But that is not
the same as being a derivative.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>On Dec 23, 7:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > So if you had 4 sources that mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth,
> > what level of confidence would that give you?
>
> And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be
> fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
> Nazarene.- Matthew 2:23
>
> Has anyone claimed that Matthew 2:23, unlike other parts of Matthew,
> wasn't authored till the 3rd century? If not, does anyone have a
> hypothesis as to how the author of Matthew 2:23 was able to think of a
> city called Nazareth if there was no such city?
Neil, Here's another reference you can add to the list I gave you
earlier.
Saint Onan
<gigacycle@ozemail.com.au>'Tain't independant corroboration either.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>I am curious.
What other factors?
How was Josephus report thats some people believed that their leader
was crucified verified?
> is considered to be enough
> to accept the points I made by historians and result in a consensus.
>
> There really isn't any reason to even try to refute them.
It is not so much about refuting them as to assign those "facts" the
proper level of certitude.
Hearsay is not "facts."
> We know Christians existed. They wrote many different versions of their
> Bible. And whether the Christians today accept the Gnostics as Christians or
> not is quite irrelevant from a historical standpoint because they were all
> part of the Christian "movement".
>
> So why question Josephus statements at all? The one's that are questioned
> are the one's that are suspected of being forgeries.
I am not questinning whether the parts he wrote regarding the sect who
believed that their leader was crucified were actually written by him.
I am conceding that these parts are not forgeries.
All I am saying is that Josephus reporting that some people believing
that their leader was crucified does not mean it is true, even if
Josephus believed those people.
Again, the question is, what corroborating evidence do we have that
allows us to take Josephus's report on that particular matter as
historically accurate?
> Frankly a lot of history from that era is hearsay based on writings of
> people like Josephus.
>
> If historians independently verify a single fact they tend to accept it when
> it comes to these ancient documents.
Except that Jospehus did not independently verify that fact, he
merely, in passing, mentioned a few words about an obscure sect.
If he had written a treatise on the Christus sect, then I would be
more inclined to accept that he actually researched what ever he would
have written. However, in this case, we are talking about a quick
comment in a section of his work that was not specifically about the
Christus sect.
> How strong the acceptance is, is determined by how often it's independently
> verified, whether it was likely to be first hand and a lot of other factors
> but it's not rejected out of hand when that confirmation exists.
>
> Lots of people were crucified by Pilate. From what I can tell it appeared to
> be a favorite past time of his.
>
> Accepting that the leader of the Christus was crucified is no big deal.
>
> It was nothing special frankly and it doesn't give credence to the story
> that he was divine, rose from the dead etc.
Yes, very true.
> The Romans say the Christians gave them grief and it indicates in the Bible
> that there were conflicts between the Romans and the Christians.
>
> How does accepting that make one iota of difference to our arguments.
>
> It doesn't make the Bible true on everything just because a couple of things
> are true and have been independently verified.
Except they have not, and many Christians like tout those few words as
if they confirmed everything else in the bible.
So, because of that, I think it is worth reminding them that the
Josephus report is not a first hand account, it is merely a few
comments he wrote based on hearsay from other non-first hand accounts.
> Nor does it even support claims that the Jesus as described in the Bible
> existed.
>
> And frankly, even if the Bible *was* discovered to be completely
> historically accurate(not likely given the blatant contraditions on "facts")
> and someone proved it, would it mean that Jesus was divine and God exists?
>
> Of course not.
Indeed.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>Yes, fact.
> 2. Their leader was crucified.
Hearsay, so not factual.
> 3. The Romans had a problem with the Christus.
Yes, fact.
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> > > > > > It would if the discovery Maggsy mention did prove a village existed,
> > > > > > but it does not prove such a thing.
>
> > > > > I haven't read his article specifically. But the one I read left
> > > > > little doubt that Nazareth was a real place during the time of Jesus.
>
> > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34511072/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
>
> > > > The archaeological evidence establishes that the site of modern-day
> > > > Nazareth was inhabited at the beginning of the first century CE, and
> > > > probably even earlier. It does not establish that the name "Nazareth"
> > > > was linked to the place at the time.
>
> > > > To my mind it seems just as likely that some Christian pilgrims showed
> > > > up in Jerusalem in the third century, and asked the way to Jesus'
> > > > birthplace. Then some quick-thinking touts renamed a likely-looking
> > > > hamlet as "Nazareth" in order to cater to the burgeoning tourist
> > > > trade.
>
> > > That kind of illustrates a major difference in the way we read the
> > > Bible, I generally accept it as true unless there is a good reason
> > > not too. And you seem only to accept anything in it as being true if
> > > it can be verified from outside the text. Do you apply the same
> > > default disbelief to all 'histories'?
>
> > You question would only be valid if the bible was a "history". It is
> > not.
>
> It is, at least in part.
How do you tell the historical biblical texts apart from the non-
historical ones?
> > Since you think that any ancient text is a "history",
>
> You really don't know what I think, do you.
Fair enough, but I was just trying to get a reaction from you.
Your answer to my question above will actually be an answer to this
oversimplification of mine.
> > do you doubt any
> > of the events in the "Iliad"?
___________________________________________
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>This was confirmed in the same place that the other two were confirmed so I don't understand why you consider this hearsay and not the other points?
Could you elaborate?
Yes, fact.
> 3. The Romans had a problem with the Christus.
___________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://jerusalemperspective.com/%5Cdefault.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1633
______________________________________________
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>On Dec 23, 4:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped>
I'm going to try to answer all the questions you posed here at once so I don't repeat myself.
Except that Jospehus did not independently verify that fact, he
merely, in passing, mentioned a few words about an obscure sect.
If he had written a treatise on the Christus sect, then I would be
more inclined to accept that he actually researched what ever he would
have written. However, in this case, we are talking about a quick
comment in a section of his work that was not specifically about the
Christus sect.
The standard of acceptance in all ancient texts is quite low. The "reliability" as St Onan indicated is determined by how many times a "fact" has been independently verified.
AFAIK Josephus is the only credible independent verification of these particular "facts". However, I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert so I'm simply saying this based on what I know.
What makes them facts is that there is consensus by historians on those points based on the standards that historians generally apply to ancient texts.
IMO, it's more important to make the point that even if these particular items are considered to be likely true given the consensus amongst historians, it doesn't, in and of itself give credence to the "truth" of the NT as a whole.
And none of these facts support the specific claims made about the Biblical Jesus.
The Bible is written in a style that is no different from other mythologies, including most the NT.
It isn't written in the style of documented histories like Josephus except perhaps in the case of Luke.
Some of the gnostic texts also present a little more realistic version of certain events.
The other point is that the Christus weren't movers and shakers in the time that they originated and were active.
The were a small, insignificant group of "rebels" whom the Romans considered a nuisance and not much more.
If they were significant in any way ancient historians, particularly those alive during the time of the Christus, would have given them more than just a passing glance. Instead they were virtually ignored and mentioned only in passing years later.
IMO, they appear to have become significant much later when Constantine took an interest and appears to have decided this particular religious philosophy could be useful to him.
That seems to have been the time that the disparate movements of Christianity were brought together based on similarity of beliefs and other movements of Christianity which went against those beliefs like the gnostics were excluded.
Previous to that, from what I can tell, and I'm not an expert in this, they were completely separate churches which followed particular apostles.
Yes, very true.
> How strong the acceptance is, is determined by how often it's independently
> verified, whether it was likely to be first hand and a lot of other factors
> but it's not rejected out of hand when that confirmation exists.
>
> Lots of people were crucified by Pilate. From what I can tell it appeared to
> be a favorite past time of his.
>
> Accepting that the leader of the Christus was crucified is no big deal.
>
> It was nothing special frankly and it doesn't give credence to the story
> that he was divine, rose from the dead etc.
Except they have not, and many Christians like tout those few words as
> The Romans say the Christians gave them grief and it indicates in the Bible
> that there were conflicts between the Romans and the Christians.
>
> How does accepting that make one iota of difference to our arguments.
>
> It doesn't make the Bible true on everything just because a couple of things
> are true and have been independently verified.
if they confirmed everything else in the bible.
So, because of that, I think it is worth reminding them that the
Josephus report is not a first hand account, it is merely a few
comments he wrote based on hearsay from other non-first hand accounts.
Or, we could simply state that the fact that the Christus existed and had a leader who was crucified doesn't mean that the Jesus was divine, performed miracles, or was the son of a god.
Those are the key factors worthy of refute because they are most unlikely to ever be demonstrated to be true.
And as an atheist, that's the extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof for me.
The rest of it doesn't actually matter and might or might not be true.
IMO, we're sticking our neck out by trying to refute every single thing in the Bible other than the extraordinary claims because much of it hasn't actually been falsified.
My entire basis for saying the Bible isn't true or historically accurate are those extraordinary claims of miracles, magic, divinity, and claims of gods.
Other things may or may not be true but even if they are true they are irrelevant to those extraordinary claims, and do not substantiate them.
That's the point that matters IMO.
Indeed.
> Nor does it even support claims that the Jesus as described in the Bible
> existed.
>
> And frankly, even if the Bible *was* discovered to be completely
> historically accurate(not likely given the blatant contraditions on "facts")
> and someone proved it, would it mean that Jesus was divine and God exists?
>
> Of course not.
___________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> But what is the difference of Kunti's and Jesus was he was God's only
> begotton Son...I wonder what that means...?
If Jesus too was God's begotten, then obviously neither Kunti's son
nor Mary's son was God's only begotten.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>Christians exist. They had to start somewhere. Many ancient texts do
mention a sect of Christian, either as "Christus," "Gnostic" or
"Christian"... The actual label does not matter. We can safely infer
that Josephus was refering to "proto-Christians."
The fact that Romans and early Christians had some disagreement is
recorded in many texts.
But the alleged fact that the Christian leader was crucified is from
the one source, i.e. Josephus, ain' it? And Josephus just wrote what
others told him about that "Christus" sect, right? ( I mean I do not
think that Josephus actually talked to actual Christus sect members,
did he?)
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 23, 4:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nope. It confirms that Josephus heard about people who claimed that
> > > their leader had been crucified, period.
> How was Josephus report thats some people believed that their leader
> was crucified verified?
Even if it were unverified, it wouldn't be difficult to believe that
some people claimed to have a leader who had been crucified.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com><snipped>
Christians exist. They had to start somewhere. Many ancient texts do> This was confirmed in the same place that the other two were confirmed so I
> don't understand why you consider this hearsay and not the other points?
>
> Could you elaborate?
mention a sect of Christian, either as "Christus," "Gnostic" or
"Christian"... The actual label does not matter. We can safely infer
that Josephus was refering to "proto-Christians."
The fact that Romans and early Christians had some disagreement is
recorded in many texts.
But the alleged fact that the Christian leader was crucified is from
the one source, i.e. Josephus, ain' it? And Josephus just wrote what
others told him about that "Christus" sect, right? ( I mean I do not
think that Josephus actually talked to actual Christus sect members,
did he?)
Okay. I understand what you're saying and yes that's true and that's where reliability comes in.
So, one can say that the existence of the Christus and the Roman dislike of them is more reliable information than that of Jesus crucifixion but I still don't see why it should be refuted based on my next post where I explain in more detail.
In addition, another point that I focus on (aside from the divinity, magic, god stuff) is the fact that we don't actually know what the real philosophy of the Christus was.
All we have is interpretations that were written years later and only some were "accepted" based on grounds of popularity and not necessarily accuracy.
So, the Christians who existed in Constantine's time and later may or may not even be following the religious philosophy and doctrine of the Christus sect.
That original philosophy is gone and there is no way of verifying if the accepted beliefs are consistent with that or not.
__________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>I agree, however, I think it is also important to make sure that
whatever sources those bible apologists use are actually given the
actual credibility they desrve, and no more.
So, instead of having an apologist claim that Jesus was real because
Josephus wrote about him, I would like to see those people actually
say that Jesus MIGHT be the person Josephus was referring to in his
comment which was based on hearsay.
> And none of these facts support the specific claims made about the Biblical
> Jesus.
True.
> The Bible is written in a style that is no different from other mythologies,
> including most the NT.
True.
> It isn't written in the style of documented histories like Josephus except
> perhaps in the case of Luke.
>
> Some of the gnostic texts also present a little more realistic version of
> certain events.
>
> The other point is that the Christus weren't movers and shakers in the time
> that they originated and were active.
>
> The were a small, insignificant group of "rebels" whom the Romans considered
> a nuisance and not much more.
Exactly. So, whatever Josephus wrote about them was certainly based on
dubious hearsay, unless he states that he actually talked to a
Christus member, but from the way his comment is worded, it seems very
unlikely that he had any direct contact with any of these people.
Which means that everything he wrote about the Christus people is
hearsay that needs to be corroborated elsewhere.
Some of it was corroborated (the fact that the early Christians
existed and that the Romans disliked them) and others were not (such
as the crucification of their leader).
> If they were significant in any way ancient historians, particularly those
> alive during the time of the Christus, would have given them more than just
> a passing glance. Instead they were virtually ignored and mentioned only in
> passing years later.
Exactly.
Yes, true, but I believe that the above should be reworded like so:
"
Or, we could simply state that the fact that the Christus existed
doesn't mean that the Jesus was divine, performed
miracles, or was the son of a god.
"
However, I agree that in reality it is a small matter, unfortunately,
too many Christians consider the Josephus text as an incontrovertible
proof that the NT is 100% correct. This is why I like to make sure
that the Josephus comment about the Christus sect is given its proper
level of certitude (I do not want want to refute it, just cast the
proper "credibility light" on it.)
> Those are the key factors worthy of refute because they are most unlikely to
> ever be demonstrated to be true.
>
> And as an atheist, that's the extraordinary claim which requires
> extraordinary proof for me.
>
> The rest of it doesn't actually matter and might or might not be true.
>
> IMO, we're sticking our neck out by trying to refute every single thing in
> the Bible other than the extraordinary claims because much of it hasn't
> actually been falsified.
>
> My entire basis for saying the Bible isn't true or historically accurate are
> those extraordinary claims of miracles, magic, divinity, and claims of gods.
>
> Other things may or may not be true but even if they are true they are
> irrelevant to those extraordinary claims, and do not substantiate them.
>
> That's the point that matters IMO.
Yes, it is a very important point.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><Sigh>
You seem to be missing my point.
I am not interested in establishing whether Josephus actually wrote
those words or not. I am fully happy to accept that he did.
The point is, he wrote what he did based on hearsay. So, I am sure
that Josephus believed that some people believed that their leader was
crucified; however, since all of this rests on hearsay, it does not
mean that it is true, period (not because Josephus might have
knowingly written a falsehood or that it was a forgery, simply because
it is not based on first-hand accounts). The early Christus belief
about their leader being crucified might be a legend they sincerely
believed in but that did not actually happened.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> <snipped>
>
>
>
> > > This was confirmed in the same place that the other two were confirmed so
> > I
> > > don't understand why you consider this hearsay and not the other points?
>
> > > Could you elaborate?
>
> > Christians exist. They had to start somewhere. Many ancient texts do
> > mention a sect of Christian, either as "Christus," "Gnostic" or
> > "Christian"... The actual label does not matter. We can safely infer
> > that Josephus was refering to "proto-Christians."
>
> > The fact that Romans and early Christians had some disagreement is
> > recorded in many texts.
>
> > But the alleged fact that the Christian leader was crucified is from
> > the one source, i.e. Josephus, ain' it? And Josephus just wrote what
> > others told him about that "Christus" sect, right? ( I mean I do not
> > think that Josephus actually talked to actual Christus sect members,
> > did he?)
>
> Okay. I understand what you're saying and yes that's true and that's where
> reliability comes in.
>
> So, one can say that the existence of the Christus and the Roman dislike of
> them is more reliable information than that of Jesus crucifixion but I still
> don't see why it should be refuted based on my next post where I explain in
> more detail.
But I am not saying that it should be refuted, only that this
particular "fact" should be given its proper level of certitude, i.e,
it is not a fact, it is just hearsay, hence a probability.
Too many Christians use that Josephus comment as the cornerstone of
their entire argument to prove that Jesus, as described in the bible
was real, and they do so because too many people accept that because
Josephus wrote it, it must be true.
That is, unless the crucifixion of the the Christus leader can be
corroborated elsewhere.
> In addition, another point that I focus on (aside from the divinity, magic,
> god stuff) is the fact that we don't actually know what the real philosophy
> of the Christus was.
>
> All we have is interpretations that were written years later and only some
> were "accepted" based on grounds of popularity and not necessarily accuracy.
.
Yes, that is a good point as well.
> So, the Christians who existed in Constantine's time and later may or may
> not even be following the religious philosophy and doctrine of the Christus
> sect.
>
> That original philosophy is gone and there is no way of verifying if the
> accepted beliefs are consistent with that or not.
Indeed!
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>True. I just don't give it much importance.
I don't think we're disagreeing too much :-)
Yes, it is a very important point.
> Those are the key factors worthy of refute because they are most unlikely to
> ever be demonstrated to be true.
>
> And as an atheist, that's the extraordinary claim which requires
> extraordinary proof for me.
>
> The rest of it doesn't actually matter and might or might not be true.
>
> IMO, we're sticking our neck out by trying to refute every single thing in
> the Bible other than the extraordinary claims because much of it hasn't
> actually been falsified.
>
> My entire basis for saying the Bible isn't true or historically accurate are
> those extraordinary claims of miracles, magic, divinity, and claims of gods.
>
> Other things may or may not be true but even if they are true they are
> irrelevant to those extraordinary claims, and do not substantiate them.
>
> That's the point that matters IMO.
__________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 24, 10:27 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 9:19 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > How was Josephus report thats some people believed that their leader
> > > was crucified verified?
>
> > Even if it were unverified, it wouldn't be difficult to believe that
> > some people claimed to have a leader who had been crucified.
>
> <Sigh>
>
> You seem to be missing my point.
> I am not interested in establishing whether Josephus actually wrote
> those words or not. I am fully happy to accept that he did.
>
> The point is, he wrote what he did based on hearsay.
I didn't say it was not hearsay. I said its being hearsay doesn't make
it difficult to believe. Be that as it may, that he might have
actually met some people who claimed to have a leader who had been
crucified seems within the realm of possibility.
> So, I am sure
> that Josephus believed that some people believed that their leader was
> crucified; however, since all of this rests on hearsay, it does not
> mean that it is true, period (not because Josephus might have
> knowingly written a falsehood or that it was a forgery, simply because
> it is not based on first-hand accounts). The early Christus belief
> about their leader being crucified might be a legend they sincerely
> believed in but that did not actually happened.
Even if it was a legend, that didn't prevent Josephus from meeting a
believer in the legend. He might not have met such a person but if
such people existed, he could have come across one of them.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Yes. I see what you're saying and I don't really disagree it's just something I wouldn't bother a lot with.
I would focus my arguments elsewhere.
Too many Christians use that Josephus comment as the cornerstone of
their entire argument to prove that Jesus, as described in the bible
was real, and they do so because too many people accept that because
Josephus wrote it, it must be true.
I agree and of course it doesn't.
That is, unless the crucifixion of the the Christus leader can be
corroborated elsewhere.
Well I think historians also consider possibility. That is, that given the Christus existed and were actively annoying the Romans, and that crucifixions were big at the time, it's well within the realm of possibility that the leader of the Christus was crucified.
It doesn't mean he was resurrected though, or the son of god or divine.
.
> In addition, another point that I focus on (aside from the divinity, magic,
> god stuff) is the fact that we don't actually know what the real philosophy
> of the Christus was.
>
> All we have is interpretations that were written years later and only some
> were "accepted" based on grounds of popularity and not necessarily accuracy.
Yes, that is a good point as well.
Indeed!
> So, the Christians who existed in Constantine's time and later may or may
> not even be following the religious philosophy and doctrine of the Christus
> sect.
>
> That original philosophy is gone and there is no way of verifying if the
> accepted beliefs are consistent with that or not.
__________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com><snip>
> 'Tain't independant corroboration either.
Mark makes mention of Nazareth 3 times.
Matthew makes mention of Nazareth 4 times, but none of them the same
as Mark.
Luke makes mention of Nazareth 8 times, 1 of which is a duplicate of
Mark.
John makes 5 mentions of Nazareth.
And there are 7 mentions in Acts.
Most of these are in the form of 'Jesus of Nazareth', but they are
mostly at distinct parts of the account of Jesus and the early church,
and are recorded by 4 different authors with very little overlap.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>
Eric Griswold, R.C.
<eric@clevian.com>misunderstanding of the Hebrew "Nazirite," which was an obscure,
highly ascetic Jewish religious sect of the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite.
A few OT prophecies imply that a future messiah would come from
Bethlehem, so some gospels allege he was born there, in accord with
the natural "let's shoehorn him into any prophecy we can think of"
attitude of later followers. Like the contradictory geneaologies: one
has him descended from David on his *father's* side (oops! how would
that work?) and another one claiming that descent on his mother's
side.
Interestingly the oldest gospel (Mark) doesn't mention any birthplace
at all. It jumps right into his adult life, as in: "here was this guy
who did this and that, and then they killed him."
One can see echoes of perhaps both Nazirite and Essene thought in the
sayings of Jesus in the gospels. This leads to an interesting mystery,
and a speculation. Why was Jesus proclaimed as "Rabbi" even though he
was (apparently) not married? Since time immemorial, all Jewish Rabbis
have to be married, as they are expected to advise about family
matters.
One theory holds that Jesus was gay, (who was that mysterious, unnamed
"Beloved Disciple" anyway?) But even if he was incredibly far in the
closet, it still doesn't explain why people called him "Rabbi."
Another theory holds he WAS married. Why was he at a wedding--with his
mom!-- acting the part of the host by dishing out the wine? Why else
the strange scene with Mary and Martha, where Mary acts out perfectly
the role of a Hebrew wife? But it would be strange for those times not
to mention his marriage and family, (if any).
This leads me to my speculative theory. He was married, but took up
the Essene-Nazrite asceticism to such a degree that eventually he
became a self-castrati... not unheard of for holy men in that age.
Look at his doctrine: (paraphrase) "If your eye leads you to lust,
pluck it out... if your hand leads you to lust, cut it off... if any
other part offends you, cut it off." Also his saying that some men are
borrn eunuchs, some made that way by men, some made that way by
themselves. Also his doctrine about marrying, which he said was not
for everybody, and his idea that in heaven, there is no marriage.
So if he had once been married, people could call him Rabbi, but then
with his self-castration he leaves his wife behind, not part of his
new, ascetic life anymore, though occasionally he visits her (as in
the Mary and Martha story.)
The macabre part of this speculation is this. What is the origin of
the strange cannibalism symbology that he taught? To be saved, you
must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood and all that. I hate to
suggest autophagy, that he asked people to symbolically or actually
eat part of his cut-off bits, in some sort of mystery ritual....but
stranger cults were known in the ancient world.
Just a thought for this group. To argue properly, the Christians
should read and actually understand science and evolution before they
post. If you don't know what you are talking about, there is no point
in arguing. But the same is true the other way. The athiests should
read the Bible before posting. It is a whopping good story if nothing
else. A cultural myth that is at the base of Western culture. To
refute it, you have to know it IMHO.
I am a scientist and it is clear to me that evolution is happening all
around and yes, the universe is 13 billion years old. Yet I have read
the bible many times. Imagine yourself trying to politically unify
some tribes in 1500 BC. What doctrine would you use? Clearly it is an
amazingly successful piece of sociology, as it is still here while
Odin, Athena, and Jupiter have fallen to the wayside. In evolutionary
terms it has "outcompeted" them. Learn from it, at least
sociologically. And the Jesus story-- whatever parts historically
true, whatever parts added later--is great theater that has inspired
throngs for 2,000 years. So good they even made a rock opera out of
it! :)
Pure reason is great, but not everyone possesses it in full measure.
What keeps all the other people from raping and killing? This was the
argument that Benjamin Franklin (no regular churchgoer, he) gave to
his friend Thomas Paine who was diligently promoting atheism in
France. As a pragmatic matter, the belief that there is a god in the
sky who sees your horrid crimes--- even if the Constable doesn't-- and
will punish you even worse than the Constable-- is perhaps a step
towards human self-regulation. It coerces people to take the detached,
objective view, that of an outside observer. Not just the entirely
subjective view of: I see that, I want that, therefore I will take
that.
It might be argued that the originally religious habit of learning to
view the universe from outside, i.e., objectively, as perhaps a god
would see it, formed the initial foundation of objective science as we
know it. And in these modern times at least some of us have been
raised almost from birth with these ideas, and so easily adopt the
scientific viewpoint and instictively see our own actions, as it were,
from the outside looking in, allowing us to effectively regulate
ourselves-- god or no god. I think our failing is that we falsely
believe that this view is somehow natural and inherent, that we are
somehow born with it or it magically comes unto everybody. Instead, it
is a particularly complex social abstraction that comes only from
careful training from birth.
In my opinion, the decline of the belief in an onmiscient god is
merely replaced, in practice, by a belief in omniscient video
surveillance cameras and forensic techniques which serves the same
sociological purpose.
.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> Another theory I've heard is that "Nazarene" is a later
> misunderstanding of the Hebrew "Nazirite," which was an obscure,
> highly ascetic Jewish religious sect of the time:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite.
I once noticed with interest a semitic (whether Aramaic or Hebrew I
don't remember) word nagar meaning carpenter. If there really is such
a word as was claimed in what I read, is it conceivable that its
similarity to your words is the reason why Jesus is claimed to have
been a carpenter?
> Like the contradictory geneaologies: one
> has him descended from David on his *father's* side (oops! how would
> that work?
Simple; God was his father and David was God's ancestor:-) (If God can
miraculously become a human's father, can't he also miraculously
become a human's son?)
>) and another one claiming that descent on his mother's
> side.
Nothing prevents both his parents from having had such descent since
it's possible for both one's mother and father to descend from the
same individual who lived many generations back.
> Thomas Paine who was diligently promoting atheism in
> France.
Why would a deist diligently promote atheism?
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>
.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>The writings of Paul, Peter and the epistles of John were not history,
they were letters written to people or churches addressing issues that
were being faced. Psalms, Proverbs and the Prophets in the OT are
examples of non-historical writings, although there may be some
history in passing. Genesis and Exodus are written as history while
Leviticus is not. The Gospels and Acts are written as history.
Historical writings are telling us about what was going on during some
period of time.
However, just because I identify Genesis as a historical document does
not mean that I accept it as an accurate history by today's
standards. I accept that a significant amount of the 'history' in
Genesis has some basis in reality; for instance, the accounts of the
patriarchs Abraham, Issac and Jacob probably were based on some real
events, although not necessarily just the single family and likely
modified greatly from how it actually occurred.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Dec 25, 4:36 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now we know Jesus was not Gay...He was born in Bethlehem.
LL: How would that make him not gay?
******************************************
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>