The existence of Jesus Christ

[Dogooder]

What do you believe?

I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?

[Drafterman]

On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you believe?

That't you're a liar.

>
> I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?

By becoming a theist, apparently.

[Trance Gemini]

A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?

 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

[Drafterman]

On Mar 30, 11:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > By becoming a theist, apparently.
>
> A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?

Maybe. Can't say yet.

>
>
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony

[dali_70]

On Mar 30, 11:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?

I think if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you believe?
>
> That't you're a liar.

This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.

[Turner Hayes]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dogooder <albertd...@gmail.com> wrote:

What do you believe?

I was an atheist,

Bullshit.

[Dogooder]

Yes, Jesus Christ exists.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 10:21 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you believe?
>
> > I was an atheist,
>
> Bullshit.

You better believe it. Can you say that to Anthony Flew?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.

You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently

because of the
nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
existence of Jesus."

That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 30, 1:20 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.

And I was only answering it. If you don't want honest answers to your
questions, then stick your head in the sand with your Bible until your
savior comes to claim you.

Leave the thinking people alone.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>

> > By becoming a theist, apparently.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> because of the
> nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> existence of Jesus."
>
> That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.

Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.

And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
liar. Only a homosexual does that. I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
recently. Now, there is you and this DraftyBrokebackCowboy.

You just reinforced my statement that you atheists cannot hold a
discussion. You cannot rationalize anything. You are here as homos and
not atheists.

[kenandkids]

has anyone noticed dogdoers obsession with guys and their sexual
preferences? seems quite telling...

[Sketch System]

On Mar 30, 8:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you believe?

About what?

> I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> existence of Jesus.

Such as?

> How can I advocate such irrational belief?

What belief do you refer to? As far as I know, the only thing
atheists must have in common is the absence of one particular belief:
the belief in any god.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 10:43 am, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you believe?
>
> About what?

Read the subject, then answer the question. That's what.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 10:35 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:20 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> And I was only answering it. If you don't want honest answers to your
> questions, then stick your head in the sand with your Bible until your
> savior comes to claim you.

Okay, so that's what a DraftyBrokebackCowboy would answer. Now I know.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 30, 9:36 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> > because of the
> > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > existence of Jesus."
>
> > That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> > question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> > you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.
>
> Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.

I agree with Drafterman that you are probably lying whenyou say you
were once an atheist. At best, you might have been angry at God for
some dopey reason and thought that made you an atheist. At best.

> And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
> liar.

By the fact that you objectively lied.

> Only a homosexual does that.

I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals. And there IS
something wrong with that.

> I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
> recently. Now, there is you and this DraftyBrokebackCowboy.

I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals.

> You just reinforced my statement that you atheists cannot hold a
> discussion.

There is objective and verifiable evidence that some atheists can hold
a discussion in almost every thread on this newsgroup. This evidence
means that not only are you a liar, but you are also delusional.

> You cannot rationalize anything.

Sure I can. I can rationalize calling you a liar because you lied.

> You are here as homos and
> not atheists.

I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 10:59 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:36 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > > You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> > > because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus."
>
> > > That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> > > question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> > > you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.
>
> > Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.
>
> I agree with Drafterman that you are probably lying whenyou say you
> were once an atheist.

How can you or the DraftyCowboy know that for sure?

[Walt]

It's always a matter of degree how sure historians are of the events
of history. I think historians would say there is more evidence that
Mohammed was an actual person than Jesus was an actual person.

I've head it claimed that there is "proof" that the story of Jesus was
invented. But that doesn't seem to be supported by a consensus of
professional historians, so I doubt it's accurate. Is that what you
are talking about?

In any case, you should adopt a position because you feel the valid
arguments in favor of it outweigh any valid arguments against it. How
can invalid arguments be relevant? People have made awful arguments
in favor of Christianity. It was argued that Europe's colonial
conquests were a sign of the truth of Christianity. Does that make
you stop believing in Christianity?

On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 30, 10:01 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:59 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:36 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > > > You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> > > > because of the
> > > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > > existence of Jesus."
>
> > > > That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> > > > question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> > > > you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.
>
> > > Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.
>

> > I agree with Drafterman that you are probably lying when you say you

> > were once an atheist.
>
> How can you or the DraftyCowboy know that for sure?

By reading your posts for a while.

> > At best, you might have been angry at God for
> > some dopey reason and thought that made you an atheist. At best.
>
> > > And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
> > > liar.
>
> > By the fact that you objectively lied.
>
> > > Only a homosexual does that.
>
> > I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals. And there IS
> > something wrong with that.
>
> > > I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
> > > recently. Now, there is you and this DraftyBrokebackCowboy.
>
> > I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals.
>
> > > You just reinforced my statement that you atheists cannot hold a
> > > discussion.
>
> > There is objective and verifiable evidence that some atheists can hold
> > a discussion in almost every thread on this newsgroup. This evidence
> > means that not only are you a liar, but you are also delusional.
>
> > > You cannot rationalize anything.
>
> > Sure I can. I can rationalize calling you a liar because you lied.
>
> > > You are here as homos and
> > > not atheists.
>
> > I view homophobes like you as latent homosexuals.
>
> > > > > > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > > > > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > > > > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>

> > > > > > By becoming a theist, apparently.- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Mar 30, 1:47 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:35 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:20 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > And I was only answering it. If you don't want honest answers to your
> > questions, then stick your head in the sand with your Bible until your
> > savior comes to claim you.
>
> Okay, so that's what a DraftyBrokebackCowboy would answer. Now I know.

Yes. When in doubt, make homosexual innuendo.

>
>
>
> > Leave the thinking people alone.
>
> > > > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > > > By becoming a theist, apparently.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Slinkey]

There could be any number of reasons.

1) you are suffering from a mental illness.
2) you have no critical reasoning facilty.
3) you're gullible.
4) you have a severe need to want to be forgiven for things you
haven't done wrong
5) you have a low IQ
6) you are uneducated
7) you weren't actually an atheist and are lying.
8) you think its the right thing to do
9) your mate told you and he is never wrong
10) you have no direction in life and are clinging to any straw and
this just happened to be the nearest
11) you've given up looking for truth and have settled for lies
12) you think it gives you the right to look down on people
13) you fancy Jesus because secretly you're gay
14) you prefer the company of bible basing morons rather than
masturbating all day long alone

It could be any reason, but there is definitely one reason that it was
not: due to evidence.

[Slinkey]

On Mar 30, 4:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > By becoming a theist, apparently.
>
> A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?

I don't know who Liam is (and I don't want to know if this dick is
anything to go by) but he is definitely a sock puppet.

> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
>

[Slinkey]

On Mar 30, 6:36 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> > because of the
> > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > existence of Jesus."
>
> > That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> > question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> > you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.
>
> Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.
>
> And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
> liar. Only a homosexual does that. I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
> recently. Now, there is you and this DraftyBrokebackCowboy.
>
> You just reinforced my statement that you atheists cannot hold a
> discussion. You cannot rationalize anything. You are here as homos and
> not atheists.

Ah, now I get it. You're in the closet and due to your frustration you
come here to show us what a man you are by continually using
homosexuality as a slur word.

You are the sock puppet of TRUECRISTIAN [sic] no doubt.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Slinkey <paul.d...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Mar 30, 4:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > By becoming a theist, apparently.
>
> A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?

I don't know who Liam is (and I don't want to know if this dick is
anything to go by) but he is definitely a sock puppet.

 

It's a long story and can be read in detail on the Mod Forum.

[Syd]

Prove it.

PDW

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1781586

[Syd]

On Mar 30, 1:25 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:21 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > > I was an atheist,
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> You better believe it.

No.

>Can you say that to Anthony Flew?
>

What, the "Leading Atheist" that no one ever heard of until the
religious right started to claim him for one of their own?
Even he says that they are lying.

PDW

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1781586

[Turner Hayes]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Dogooder <albertd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 30, 10:21 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you believe?
>
> > I was an atheist,
>
> Bullshit.

You better believe it.

No, just because some crackpot like you says something doesn't mean I have to believe it. You would do well to learn that lesson--you might stop being a theist.

 

Can you say that to Anthony Flew?

I can, but I generally don't spout out irrelevant names. That's what crazy people do. That's why you do it.

[Medusa]

Dogooder;

> And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
> liar. Only a homosexual does that.

Prejudiced snark, aren't you?

>I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
> recently. Now, there is you and this DraftyBrokebackCowboy.

And I'm tagging you as a bigot.

> You just reinforced my statement that you atheists cannot hold a
> discussion. You cannot rationalize anything. You are here as homos and
> not atheists.

You are here as an asshole.

Come back when you are able to reason and debate.

Medusa

[Observer]

Observer
Please provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the
existence of Jesus as the Christ. (The Messiah).

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Mar 30, 10:36 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> > > they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.
>
> > You said "I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently
> > because of the
> > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > existence of Jesus."
>
> > That is a statement, not a question. So, you weren't "only asking a
> > question." So not only do I agree with Drafterman that you are a liar,
> > you just provided conclusive proof that you are a liar.
>
> Look at the above that this DraftyCowboy answered to.
>
> And how can you objectively judge by such statement that a person is a
> liar. Only a homosexual does that. I've tagged Dev as one bad homo
> recently.

Observer
How very interesting that you use "homosexuality" as a pejorative.
Have you had a psychological evaluation wherein such as that was
discussed ? No then It is high time that you do so. Homophobia is
generally an accompanying symptom to what could be sever mental
disease. You may be a threat to yourself or others.

Get Help!

Psychonomist

[xnun]

> On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.

------------------------

Atheitards are inarticulate at best. If they couldn't use a
limited
supply of labels (sock puppet, thetard, various obscenities)
they'd be speechless.

[Medusa]

On Mar 30, 7:09 pm, xnun <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>    Atheitards are inarticulate at best.  If they couldn't use a
> limited
> supply of labels (sock puppet, thetard, various obscenities)
> they'd be speechless.

All you have to offer is insults, not debate.

You're the one with the labels: "atheitard" surfaces in just about
ebery post you make.

However, I do suppose it's better that you insult adults rather than
the unfortunate, powerless children you "teach."

Medusa

[dead kennedy]

liam, and believe me i hate to say this, made more of an effort to
logically argue.

On 30 Mar, 16:35, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>

> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > By becoming a theist, apparently.
>

> A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?
>
>
>

[TLC]

Dogooder,

Let's get this right? One day you didn't believe in supernatural
invisible Sky Fairies, but because you didn't like, "nonsensical
arguments by some atheists" you decided one day to believe in a Sky
Fairy? Mmmm, I see. Do they ever let you go out by
yourself?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:33 AM, dead kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

liam, and believe me i hate to say this, made more of an effort to
logically argue.

 

He may be trying to avoid giving himself away ;-)

[Kilmir]

On 30 mrt, 17:22, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you believe?
>

> I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?

First off, that's complete bullocks.
You don't seem to get that being an atheist is not a matter of choice.
It's a realisation of your beliefs.
Something can convince you to think there is a deity ofcourse, but
faulty arguments about some part of a religion doesn't make you
realise there is a god. Well not unless you're a complete moron.

My guess is that you never were an atheist. The rest of your statement
indicates that you don't realise that atheists view Jesus Christ as
just another "prophet" at most. Considering the vast similarities with
demi-gods of religions before Christianity and the obvious tries to
make the JC character's story fit prophecies of the Jewish religion
the best explanation is that all the supernatural claims were
fabrications or at the least exaggerations.
Stuff like that is often dressed around a person who already did some
remarkable things (though nothing supernatural), so the best guess
would be that there was some guy, probably a rabi and likely the
leader of a splintergroup which eventually called themselves
Christians, and his story got blown up way out of proportions. Having
a gap of over half his life in the story only reinforces the idea that
large parts are made up.

This is something a lot of atheists hold as most probable. But when
you reconstruct the real stuff and then look for verifying evidence
there is a serious lack of it. There was no village of Nazareth at the
time Jesus was born for instance. Also if you look at the gospels
you'll notice that the first book, Paul / Saul 's story, never
mentions a physical Christ. This hints that in early christianity the
Christ figure was probably never a real man who walked the earth but
more a concept or a goal to strive for. The sourcebook Q was probably
the first to write down a story about a physical jew and later books
used parts of it and invented other sides of the story. It was like an
open source project with dozens of people working on it. Most books
got discarded (there were 40 or so in total iirc) and the current
canon of 4 books was what was left over as the most convincing story.
Ofcourse over the centuries many many discrepancies were discovered
but the clergy has been industrious in the department of apologetics
to make up explanations for the problems.

A solid case for no real Jesus can be made, though because everything
is 2000 years old, and aparently he wasn't a remarkable figure whom
the romans would actually take note off, physical evidence is very
lacking. Contemporary writings are either very vague, don't mention
christ or christians at all or are obvious forgeries like Josephus.

For being the most important person / life / event in the history of
mankind he certainly didn't leave much behind in the form of evidence
he even was here.


Anyway to get back to your statement and "question", it really isn't a
big jump for an atheist to ponder the question if Jesus even existed.
Only for believers who don't check their sources does something like
this come as a shock.

[Slinkey]

On Mar 30, 9:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Slinkey <paul.davi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > What do you believe?
>
> > > > That't you're a liar.
>
> > > > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of
> > the
> > > > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> > > > By becoming a theist, apparently.
>
> > > A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?
>
> > I don't know who Liam is (and I don't want to know if this dick is
> > anything to go by) but he is definitely a sock puppet.
>
> It's a long story and can be read in detail on the Mod Forum.

I think I'll pass thanks. I've done my allotted amount of head shaking
for the day. ;-)

[Steve in Virginia]

What do I believe? I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure. What
passes down to us through religious history is at best a composite
figure, like King Arthur, cobbled together from several sources. In
no way does that make Jesus real, much less divine. If you read the
letters of Paul it is quite obvious that Paul is not refering to alive
on the earth, but a purely spiritual entity. This is most telling
since Paul wrote his letters c. 40 AD, almost half a century before
the first of the gospels appear. That would make Paul a contemporary
of Jesus. Paul would have had access to people who had known Jesus
and been privy to eye-witness testimony.

Now before you mention Josephus or Tacitus lets clear that up.
Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
forgeries, and Tacitus - writing nearly rwo centuries after the
alleged events of the crucifixion - simples refers to the Christians
in reference to the burning of Rome. Tacitus criticizes Nero for
trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
imperial palace. All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
a man named Chrixtus who was supposed to have been executed during the
reign of Tiberius. This is anecdotal material, not source material in
the form of official histories, judicial or administrative documents.


Cheers,

Steve

On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you believe?
>

[dead kennedy]

DOGOODER IS A HOMOSEXUAL BONOBO MONKEY!

i miss woody, sniff.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 30, 11:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's always a matter of degree how sure historians are of the events
> of history.  I think historians would say there is more evidence that
> Mohammed was an actual person than Jesus was an actual person.
>
> I've head it claimed that there is "proof" that the story of Jesus was
> invented.  But that doesn't seem to be supported by a consensus of
> professional historians, so I doubt it's accurate.  Is that what you
> are talking about?

No, it's the other way around. There were written testimonies, not
just from Christians, that Jesus Christ existed.

> In any case, you should adopt a position because you feel the valid
> arguments in favor of it outweigh any valid arguments against it.  

That's exactly my position, the valid arguments outweigh
overwhelmingly, the positions against it.

> How can invalid arguments be relevant?  People have made awful arguments
> in favor of Christianity.  It was argued that Europe's colonial
> conquests were a sign of the truth of Christianity.  Does that make
> you stop believing in Christianity?

No, it's the other way around for me.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 4:35 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 mrt, 17:22, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you believe?
>
> > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>
> First off, that's complete bullocks.
> You don't seem to get that being an atheist is not a matter of choice.
> It's a realisation of your beliefs.
> Something can convince you to think there is a deity ofcourse, but
> faulty arguments about some part of a religion doesn't make you
> realise there is a god. Well not unless you're a complete moron.
>
> My guess is that you never were an atheist.

That's what I'm talking about, just like the others, your argument is
simply a silly guess.

[Dogooder]

If you don't know that Flew was the world's most notorious atheist by
his own admission, then you don't know. And I didn't say "leading
atheist"

> PDW
>
> http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1781586

[Dogooder]

And what is that evidence?

[dead kennedy]

On 31 Mar, 15:59, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, it's the other way around.  There were written testimonies, not
> just from Christians, that Jesus Christ existed.

would you mind listing them?

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 5:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  What
> passes down to us through religious history is at best a composite
> figure, like King Arthur, cobbled together from several sources.  In
> no way does that make Jesus real, much less divine.  If you read the
> letters of Paul it is quite obvious that Paul is not refering to alive
> on the earth, but a purely spiritual entity.  This is most telling
> since Paul wrote his letters c. 40 AD, almost half a century before
> the first of the gospels appear.  That would make Paul a contemporary
> of Jesus.  Paul would have had access to people who had known Jesus
> and been privy to eye-witness testimony.
>
> Now before you mention Josephus or Tacitus lets clear that up.
> Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> forgeries,

You must be talking about the one with the alleged interpolation as
objected by some atheist historians. However, that's been refuted by
the simple argument that all of the manuscripts found in the hands of
Christians, Jews and pagans contain the same alleged interpolation.
It's possible to doctor or change a copy or a few, but very impossible
to change all.

The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.

The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
brother of Jesus.

> and Tacitus - writing nearly rwo centuries after the
> alleged events of the crucifixion - simples refers to the Christians
> in reference to the burning of Rome.  Tacitus  criticizes Nero for
> trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> imperial palace.  All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
> a man named Chrixtus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> reign of Tiberius.  This is anecdotal material, not source material in
> the form of official histories, judicial or administrative documents.

That's is you opinion of course, but Annals, up to this days, is
considered a history book by Tacitus covering the reign of Roman
Emperors succeeding to Caesar Augustus.

[Dogooder]

My response to Steve in Virginia, below are just a few.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 7:09 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:

dead kennedy IS A HOMOSEXUAL BONOBO MONKEY!

[kenandkids]

well it's a good thing to hear that he viewed himself as much more
important than he was, much like you dogdoer.

[Steve in Virginia]

First ancient history was not subjected to the same rigorious
scholarship as modern historians must adhere to. Very little ancient
history deals with original source material. For all of tacitus's
accuracy, it was not at all unusual for ancient and medieval
historians to include ancetdotal references in their works.

Papias of Hierapolis attributes the the earliest gospel to Mark.
Papias writings no longer exist but were referenced by Eusebius. Even
papias admits that his source was oral in tradition and attributes his
information to the Presbyters. Again, nothing is from original
sources. At best, Eusebius is dealing with a tertiary source.

As for Tacitus, I stated that he is writing about Nero, not the
Christians or substantiating Christian history. Just because a modern
historian writes about the Salem Witch Trials does not make the
existance of witches a fact.


Cheers,

Steve

> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?- Hide quoted text -

[Slinkey]

Non sequitur.

[Answer_42]

On Mar 31, 11:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 5:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  What
> > passes down to us through religious history is at best a composite
> > figure, like King Arthur, cobbled together from several sources.  In
> > no way does that make Jesus real, much less divine.  If you read the
> > letters of Paul it is quite obvious that Paul is not refering to alive
> > on the earth, but a purely spiritual entity.  This is most telling
> > since Paul wrote his letters c. 40 AD, almost half a century before
> > the first of the gospels appear.  That would make Paul a contemporary
> > of Jesus.  Paul would have had access to people who had known Jesus
> > and been privy to eye-witness testimony.
>
> > Now before you mention Josephus or Tacitus lets clear that up.
> > Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> > forgeries,
>
> You must be talking about the one with the alleged interpolation as
> objected by some atheist historians.

Not by some, by most, and even the church accepts that it was a later
addition to the orignal.

> However, that's been refuted by
> the simple argument that all of the manuscripts found in the hands of
> Christians, Jews and pagans contain the same alleged interpolation.
> It's possible to doctor or change a copy or a few, but very impossible
> to change all.

Except that those are not copies of the original by a long shot.
They are copies of copies, which were based on the one that was
edited.

> The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
> the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
> went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.

Dude, your logic is seriously twisted...
Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo Jesus was
real!

> The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
> brother of Jesus.

Some James character had a brother named Jesus, a very common name in
those days.
And who else mentions that Jesus Christ had a brother?
What other soures can confirm that they (Jesus Christ from the bible
and Josephus' Jesus) are one and the same?

> > and Tacitus - writing nearly rwo centuries after the
> > alleged events of the crucifixion - simples refers to the Christians
> > in reference to the burning of Rome.  Tacitus  criticizes Nero for
> > trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> > to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> > imperial palace.  All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
> > a man named Chrixtus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > reign of Tiberius.  This is anecdotal material, not source material in
> > the form of official histories, judicial or administrative documents.
>
> That's is you opinion of course, but Annals, up to this days, is
> considered a history book by Tacitus covering the reign of Roman
> Emperors succeeding to Caesar Augustus.

Even if what Tacitus wrote is accurate down to every commas, all it
proves is that there were people who worshiped a guy called the Christ
who they believed was executed and resurrected and that they called
themselves Christians, which we already know anyway, big deal.

Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.
_______________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James

[Trance Gemini]

Just one correction. Tacitus simply states that Christus from whom the Christians were named killed Christians by various means including the cross and Christus got the worst of it.

 

There is no mention of resurrection, etc.

 

So, at best, it confirms that a small group of people called Christians existed who had a leader who's name may have been Christus.

 

It doesn't prove the character of Jesus as described in the Bible existed.

 

Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.
_______________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James

[xnun]

On Mar 31, 4:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

> Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> forgeries,

-----------------------------

They must be the same "scholars" who consulted on Jesus coming
down from the cross, marrying Mary Magdalene, moving to France
and having kids.

Scholars are more easily bought and sold than scientists. Both
groups depend on nihilistic government agencies for their sinecures.
------------------------

> All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of a man named
>Chrixtus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> reign of Tiberius. This is anecdotal material, not source material in
> the form of official histories, judicial or administrative documents.

---------------------

I see. Then how did it survive long enough for him to hear it,
not to mention for us to hear it?

[Observer]

On Mar 31, 9:03 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 7:09 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> dead kennedy IS A HOMOSEXUAL BONOBO MONKEY!

Observer
Yep a typical Christian . When the ten commandments get in the way
fuck 'em.

Remember
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Of course you don't your religion is just a sham , your god a fraud
and your mind a sewer wherein the ancients have excreted the fecal
material you call religion.

Psychonomist

[Sketch System]

On Mar 30, 10:46 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Read the subject, then answer the question. That's what.

So, do I believe that Jesus does/did exist? No.

Now, you can answer my questions.

1. What are these nonsensical arguments?

2. What is the irrational belief?

[Lawrey]

D G,

There is an outside possiblity that a person by the name of
Jesus existed and a group of religious cranks named him as christ.
But most of what is written is fable; since "IF" he existed he was no
more than a leader of a jewish relgious sect; a philosopher at best.
None of the hogwash written can be trusted which has been
said of him.

To say however, that Jesus christ exists is not just a false statement
it is an out and out fabrication of truth; in a word a lie and
irrational
to boot. Whoever you are you have to be a deluded idiot to think
you can get away with such a ridiculous proclamation.

On Mar 30, 6:21 pm, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:38 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 30, 11:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A42 thinks Dogooder is another Liam sock puppet. What do you think?
>

> > I think if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
>
> Yes, Jesus Christ exists.

[Turner Hayes]

Brilliant! So the Trojan Horse was real, as was the Scylla and Charybdis? How else would they have survived long enough for us to hear about them?

 

[Turner Hayes]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:09 PM, xnun <xnun...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 8:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > That't you're a liar.
>
> This is what I'm talking about. If an atheist cannot say anything,
> they would resort to the above. I was only asking a question.

------------------------

  Atheitards are inarticulate at best.  If they couldn't use a
limited
supply of labels (sock puppet, thetard, various obscenities)
they'd be speechless.

Coming from you, this is hilarious.

 

[Steve in Virginia]

Pretty much the same way the nonsense of astrology still lingers on
after centuries of astronomy and the mountains of scientific evidence
that the stars and planets do not influence people's lives - unless
you're refering to the tides or a potential supernova.

Steve

On Mar 31, 3:38 pm, xnun <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:35 am,SteveinVirginia<chandler2...@hotmail.com>

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 31, 12:38 pm, xnun <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> > forgeries,
>
> -----------------------------
>
>   They must be the same "scholars" who consulted on Jesus coming
> down from the cross, marrying Mary Magdalene, moving to France
> and having kids.
>
>   Scholars are more easily bought and sold than scientists.  Both
> groups depend on nihilistic government agencies for their sinecures.

Ah, conspiracy theories. Can you also tell me who is behind the
sinister plot to prevent the Vancouver Canucks from winning the
Stanley Cup?

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 31, 12:38 pm, xnun <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> > forgeries,
>
> -----------------------------
>
>   They must be the same "scholars" who consulted on Jesus coming
> down from the cross, marrying Mary Magdalene, moving to France
> and having kids.
>
>   Scholars are more easily bought and sold than scientists.  Both
> groups depend on nihilistic government agencies for their sinecures.

Ah, conspiracy theories. Can you also tell me who is behind the
sinister plot to prevent the Vancouver Canucks from winning the
Stanley Cup?

 

Me. It's my demonic revenge against hockey.

 

Keep praying Vancouver it'll never happen HeHeHe.

 

> > All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of a man named
> >Chrixtus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > reign of Tiberius.  This is anecdotal material, not source material in
> > the form of official histories, judicial or administrative documents.
>
> ---------------------
>
>   I see. Then how did it survive long enough for him to hear it,
> not to mention for us to hear it?

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 9:42 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> First ancient history was not subjected to the same rigorious
> scholarship as modern historians must adhere to.  Very little ancient
> history deals with original source material.  For all of tacitus's
> accuracy, it was not at all unusual for ancient and medieval
> historians to include ancetdotal references in their works.

However, the passage about Christ is embedded in the book itself and
not with an asterisk or a reference like we do now.

> Papias of Hierapolis attributes the the earliest gospel  to Mark.
> Papias writings no longer exist but were referenced by Eusebius.  Even
> papias admits that his source was oral in tradition and attributes his
> information to the Presbyters.  Again, nothing is from original
> sources.  At best, Eusebius is dealing with a tertiary source.

Agreed, Eusebius came late in the 4th century. If you like Christian
references, you need to read on earlier writers like Polycarp,
Ignatius, both Clements, Tertullian, Justin, Irreneaus and others.

> As for Tacitus, I stated that he is writing about Nero, not the
> Christians or substantiating Christian history.  Just because a modern
> historian writes about the Salem Witch Trials does not make the
> existance of witches a fact.

Yes Tacitus' book concerns about the Caesars and other rulers. But in
it, he mentioned Christ.

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 12:17 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 5:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  What
> > > passes down to us through religious history is at best a composite
> > > figure, like King Arthur, cobbled together from several sources.  In
> > > no way does that make Jesus real, much less divine.  If you read the
> > > letters of Paul it is quite obvious that Paul is not refering to alive
> > > on the earth, but a purely spiritual entity.  This is most telling
> > > since Paul wrote his letters c. 40 AD, almost half a century before
> > > the first of the gospels appear.  That would make Paul a contemporary
> > > of Jesus.  Paul would have had access to people who had known Jesus
> > > and been privy to eye-witness testimony.
>
> > > Now before you mention Josephus or Tacitus lets clear that up.
> > > Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> > > forgeries,
>
> > You must be talking about the one with the alleged interpolation as
> > objected by some atheist historians.
>
> Not by some, by most, and even the church accepts that it was a later
> addition to the orignal.

Can you give us the citation? The church never accepted that there is
an interpolation. The church alluded to the fact that there are some
objections to the passage and will continue investigating for facts.
However, it said that if there was a change, then it's impossible
because all of the manuscripts found in the hand of various religions,
individuals and pagans have all the same contents, including the
alleged interpolation.

The above is just one passage. The fact remains that Josephus wrote
about Jesus because there are no objections on the other passages.

[Dogooder]

Read my responses to Steve in Virginia.

[Sketch System]

On Apr 1, 8:08 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Now, you can answer my questions.
>
> > 1. What are these nonsensical arguments?
>
> > 2. What is the irrational belief?
>
> Read my responses to Steve in Virginia.

Sorry, I don't see answers to either question there. Can you copy and
paste it for me so I know which one you're referring to? My questions
are specific to that which changed your mind and made you a believer.

[xnun]

On Apr 1, 5:15 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, conspiracy theories. Can you also tell me who is behind the
> sinister plot to prevent the Vancouver Canucks from winning the
> Stanley Cup?

------------------------------
No, but I can tell you why Canadians have intercourse canine
fashion.

It''s so both can watch the Stanley Cup.

(Note that does not go against Canada's laws against demeaning
homosexuals.)

[Neil Kelsey]

Ha ha ha. You almost said "doggie style." Man, are you ever almost
funny!

[Answer_42]

On Apr 1, 11:07 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Not by some, by most, and even the church accepts that it was a later
> > addition to the orignal.
>
> Can you give us the citation? The church never accepted that there is

Of course it did not flat out admit that Eusebius forged the
original... It just admitted that there are doubt s to its
authenticity, but meanwhile, they still use it as evidence. Not
surprising, their standard for rationality have always been so low...

> an interpolation. The church alluded to the fact that there are some
> objections to the passage and will continue investigating for facts.
> However, it said that if there was a change, then it's impossible
> because all of the manuscripts found in the hand of various religions,
> individuals and pagans have all the same contents, including the
> alleged interpolation.
>
> The above is just one passage. The fact remains that Josephus wrote
> about Jesus because there are no objections on the other passages.

You really are gullible.

Consider the following:

---------------------------------
In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus
confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle
working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the
Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests
8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion
of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-
death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the
successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a
miracle!

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all
their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to
Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his
life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan
writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his
arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from
Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden
paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal.
In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in
Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had
not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not
appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in
his Contra Celsum.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his
messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that
Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he
would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in
someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about
Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-
proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician,
and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians
could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives,
nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman
taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at
the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He
discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of
priests and procurators, and so on.

Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to
slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred
money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate
sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a
great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it,
Josephus continues:

'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded
the Jews ...'

Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story
to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would
have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the
chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph,
in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference
to Christianity anywhere.

4. The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later
interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's
time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second
century.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand
other wonderful things concerning him."

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

http://tiny.cc/ACT8l
-------------------------------------
_____________________________________________
Please, my dear brothers, let your wives and sisters go to the voter
registration process. Later, you can control who she votes for, but
please, let her go.
-- Hamid Karzai

[Answer_42]

On Apr 1, 9:15 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> >   Scholars are more easily bought and sold than scientists.  Both
> > groups depend on nihilistic government agencies for their sinecures.
>
> Ah, conspiracy theories. Can you also tell me who is behind the
> sinister plot to prevent the Vancouver Canucks from winning the
> Stanley Cup?

The Swedes, of course!

[klytu]

Klytu: Lawrey, have you moved you site "Philosophy of One, On the
Many" from where it was at http://www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk/ ? I had
forwarded the link to a friend of mine and all of the links on the
home page of the site seem to be dead now.

[Lawrey]

klytu,

Please accept my profound appologies.

The original server was Lycos who went out of business and in
the transfer to another server the major part of my work was lost.
I am currently in contact with my site set up team in Cairo who
are in the process of redesigning the whole site for me.

Unfortunately communication is spasmodic since my main man
is based in UAE and his workload is such that he can only
give me what little spare time he has, but he is confident that the
site will be up and running within the month.

Once again I sincerely regret any inconvenience and will
endeavour to keep everyone interested informed as to progress
as and when information is passed to me.

Thank you for your interest.

On Apr 2, 12:57 am, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Klytu: Lawrey, have you moved you site "Philosophy of One, On the

> Many" from where it was athttp://www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk/? I had

> > > Yes, Jesus Christ exists.- Hide quoted text -

[klytu]

Lawrey,

Please, no need to apologize! You are a true gentleman. I hope this
gets sorted out for you quickly and I am looking forward to hearing
about your new site.

On Apr 2, 3:24 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> klytu,
>
> Please accept my profound appologies.
>
> The original server was Lycos who went out of business and in
> the transfer to another server the major part of my work was lost.
> I am currently in contact with my site set up team in Cairo who
> are in the process of redesigning the whole site for me.
>
> Unfortunately communication is spasmodic since my main man
> is based in UAE and his workload is such that he can only
> give me what little spare time he has, but he is confident that the
> site will be up and running within the month.
>
> Once again I sincerely regret any inconvenience and will
> endeavour to keep everyone interested informed as to progress
> as and when information is passed to me.
>
> Thank you for your interest.
>
> On Apr 2, 12:57 am, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Klytu: Lawrey, have you moved you site "Philosophy of One, On the

> > Many" from where it was athttp://www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk/?I had

[Dogooder]

They are Christians, of course they all wrote about Jesus Christ. They
did not use Josephus exact words, but they all believe in the
existence of Jesus Christ. They even went further by believing in His
divinity.

[Dogooder]

That the early writings were forgeries.

2. What is the irrational belief?

That the early writings were forgeries with no substantiating
evidences.

[kenandkids]

1.what does all the evidence lead us to?
the fact that they were forgeries.
2. what is the perfectly rational conclusion?
that they were forgeries.

[Roger Pearse]

On 31 Mar, 20:17, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:20 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 5:35 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  

No professor of ancient history at any university in the world would
agree, so you might want to consider whether you are believing
nonsense because you find it convenient. It is, after all, a very
silly idea.

> > > Now before you mention Josephus or Tacitus lets clear that up.
> > > Josephus's reverences to Jesus have been verified by scholars as
> > > forgeries,
>
> > You must be talking about the one with the alleged interpolation as
> > objected by some atheist historians.
>
> Not by some, by most, and even the church accepts that it was a later
> addition to the orignal.

There are two passages in Josephus, one in Antiquities book 18, and a
short one in Antiquities book 20. The latter has always been
considered genuine by almost everyone. Even in 1900, the high-
watermark of frivolous objections, only Emil Schurer objected to it.

The long passage looks odd, that everyone agrees on. From the start
of critical scholarship in the 17th century to the end of the 19th
century, it was generally considered a later interpolation. However
during the 20th century further manuscript witnesses were discovered
which suggested rather that the passage had been damaged, but with
substantially Josephan. That is more or less the consensus today,
although substantial minorities remain who believe that it is genuine
as it stands, or else an interpolation.

Studies of all the objections and the history of scholarship were made
by Alice Whealey in "Josephus and Jesus", published by the SBL; and J.
Carleton Paget in the Journal of Theological Studies 2001.

One consequence of the internet is the amount of 19th century material
in circulation. This is not reliable.

> > However, that's been refuted by the simple argument that all of the
> > manuscripts found in the hands of Christians, Jews and pagans contain
> > the same alleged interpolation.
> > It's possible to doctor or change a copy or a few, but very impossible
> > to change all.

This isn't a valid argument; most medieval copies of Greek texts
derive from a single common ancestor copy, usually of the 9th century.

> Except that those are not copies of the original by a long shot.
> They are copies of copies, which were based on the one that was
> edited.

All texts, ancient or modern, reach us as copies of copies -- unless
we only have photocopies of author's manuscripts on our shelves!

Josephus' works were preserved by the Greeks of the Eastern Roman
empire, later the Byzantine empire. They were not preserved by Jews,
and of course all Greek pagan literature in the original language was
preserved by the Byzantines.

It is clear from Eusebius that the Testimonium was present in
manuscripts of Josephus in his day. It is present in all manuscripts
known today. It could certainly have come into existence between the
1st and 4th centuries. However we have to have a reason to suppose
this. "Antiquities" was too long to circulate in complete copies, so
it circulated in decades. Unfortunately only two authors refer to any
of books 11-20 of Antiquities at all in that period, so we have no
idea how widely this long and boring text circulated.

> > The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
> > the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
> > went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.
>
> Dude, your logic is seriously twisted...
> Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo Jesus was
> real!

Strawman.

> > The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
> > brother of Jesus.
>
> Some James character had a brother named Jesus, a very common name in
> those days.

This is not what the passage says.

> And who else mentions that Jesus Christ had a brother?
> What other soures can confirm that they (Jesus Christ from the bible
> and Josephus' Jesus) are one and the same?

By all means list the Greek texts that refer to a Jesus named Christ
with a brother James.

> > > and Tacitus - writing nearly two centuries after the

> > > alleged events of the crucifixion

Erm, ONE century. And his text is the basis for all modern historical
writing on the reign of Tiberius, so this is not a valid point.

> > > - simply refers to the Christians

> > > in reference to the burning of Rome.  Tacitus  criticizes Nero for
> > > trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> > > to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> > > imperial palace.  All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of

> > > a man named Christus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > > reign of Tiberius.  

Perhaps if you quoted the passage you could point me to the word
"supposedly" in it?

> > > This is anecdotal material...

Speculation is not a valid reason to ignore major historical sources.

> > That's is you opinion of course, but Annals, up to this days, is
> > considered a history book by Tacitus covering the reign of Roman
> > Emperors succeeding to Caesar Augustus.
>
> Even if what Tacitus wrote is accurate down to every commas, all it
> proves is that there were people who worshiped a guy called the Christ
> who they believed was executed and resurrected and that they called
> themselves Christians, which we already know anyway,  big deal.

This seems to be obtuseness.

> Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
> allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.

Try the New Testament.

But if you are simply demanding "evidence" of a kind which ancient
history does not supply for almost anyone, then you are being
dishonest with yourself. If you want history based only on first hand
testimony, by all means supply us with some first century historians
who qualify for the reign of Tiberius.

Good luck!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[hucktunes]

On Apr 1, 11:25 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://tiny.cc/ACT8l
> -------------------------------------

That pretty much says it all, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html.

On Apr 1, 11:25 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Roger Pearse]

On Apr 2, 8:03 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That pretty much says it all,http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html.

So long as you don't verify anything, no doubt it does.

The page is merely a collection of ignorant hearsay, half-truths and
misrepresentations.

[John Stockwell]

I guess that we *have* to believe that Jesus exist, now that his
bones have been found: http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

[philosophy]

'Struth, I'm not going to wade through that junk. It's just a movie
for goodness sakes.

[hucktunes]

On Apr 2, 1:57 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The page is merely a collection of ignorant hearsay, half-truths and
> misrepresentations.

Kinda like the Bible?

On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that we *have* to believe that Jesus exist, now that his
> bones have been found: http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

Hogwash, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/jesus-tomb-show-biblical-archaeologists.html.

[Kilmir]

On 31 mrt, 17:01, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:35 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 30 mrt, 17:22, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What do you believe?
>
> > > I was an atheist, but became a believer of God recently because of the
> > > nonsensical arguments by some atheists who do not believe in the
> > > existence of Jesus. How can I advocate such irrational belief?
>

> > First off, that's complete bullocks.
> > You don't seem to get that being an atheist is not a matter of choice.
> > It's a realisation of your beliefs.
> > Something can convince you to think there is a deity ofcourse, but
> > faulty arguments about some part of a religion doesn't make you
> > realise there is a god. Well not unless you're a complete moron.
>
> > My guess is that you never were an atheist.
>
> That's what I'm talking about, just like the others, your argument is
> simply a silly guess.

A silly guess is picking a random option and claim it's right.
A guess is having some information about the subject, usually
incomplete and biased.
An informed guess is having read up on information about the topic,
and able to make a decision backed by arguments.
An educated guess is having extensive knowledge in the field of the
topic, studied it indepth and applying that knowledge and experience
to draw a conclusion.

Mine was an informed guess. My rationale was right above it. If you
disagree and point out the flaws I'm ok with that. Simply dismissing
it as a silly guess is being rude.


Kilmir

[khurramclive@gmail.com]

a nonsensical atheist argument does not prove the existence of the jesus
fairy.



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kilmir" <Kil...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 2:03 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: The existence of Jesus Christ

[Answer_42]

On Apr 2, 11:49 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  
>
> No professor of ancient history at any university in the world would
> agree, so you might want to consider whether you are believing
> nonsense because you find it convenient.  It is, after all, a very
> silly idea.

I bet any reader who has been around these parts for more than a few
months can spot at least two logical fallacies here...

<snip>

> The long passage looks odd, that everyone agrees on.  From the start
> of critical scholarship in the 17th century to the end of the 19th
> century, it was generally considered a later interpolation.  However
> during the 20th century further manuscript witnesses were discovered
> which suggested rather that the passage had been damaged, but with
> substantially Josephan.  That is more or less the consensus today,
> although substantial minorities remain who believe that it is genuine
> as it stands, or else an interpolation.

So, if it was damaged, any ideas what the original was like?

> Studies of all the objections and the history of scholarship were made
> by Alice Whealey in "Josephus and Jesus", published by the SBL; and J.
> Carleton Paget in the Journal of Theological Studies 2001.
>
> One consequence of the internet is the amount of 19th century material
> in circulation.  This is not reliable.
>
> > > However, that's been refuted by the simple argument that all of the
> > > manuscripts found in the hands of Christians, Jews and pagans contain
> > > the same alleged interpolation.
> > > It's possible to doctor or change a copy or a few, but very impossible
> > > to change all.
>
> This isn't a valid argument; most medieval copies of Greek texts
> derive from a single common ancestor copy, usually of the 9th century.

But how many people base an argument on a single paragraph form such a
manuscript that is not corroborated anywhere else?

> > Except that those are not copies of the original by a long shot.
> > They are copies of copies, which were based on the one that was
> > edited.
>
> All texts, ancient or modern, reach us as copies of copies -- unless
> we only have photocopies of author's manuscripts on our shelves!

Thanks you for agreeing with me.

> Josephus' works were preserved by the Greeks of the Eastern Roman
> empire, later the Byzantine empire.  They were not preserved by Jews,
> and of course all Greek pagan literature in the original language was
> preserved by the Byzantines.
>
> It is clear from Eusebius that the Testimonium was present in
> manuscripts of Josephus in his day.  

And can you prove that Eusebius himself COULD NOT have written the
interpolation, or "damaged" the passage, as you sated above?
He actually had very good reasons to do so.

> It is present in all manuscripts
> known today.  It could certainly have come into existence between the
> 1st and 4th centuries.  However we have to have a reason to suppose
> this.  "Antiquities" was too long to circulate in complete copies, so
> it circulated in decades.  Unfortunately only two authors refer to any
> of books 11-20 of Antiquities at all in that period, so we have no
> idea how widely this long and boring text circulated.

So, at the vey least, its usefulness as an authority or reliable
source on Jesus, a subject the author was not himself familiar with,
is very suspect, to say the least.

> > > The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
> > > the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
> > > went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.
>
> > Dude, your logic is seriously twisted...
> > Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo Jesus was
> > real!
>
> Strawman.

Agreed, it was not my strawman. I was actually pointing out that it
was a fallacy.

> > > The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
> > > brother of Jesus.
>
> > Some James character had a brother named Jesus, a very common name in
> > those days.
>
> This is not what the passage says.

Doesn't the passage sate:
"
(...) and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,
whose name was James (...)
"

So, the passage does not state that James was the brother of Jesus,
ergo, his brother was named Jesus?
Or was Josephus writing "brother" in the ghetto sense?
Or are we suppose to imply that Jesus the Christ was also known as
James?

And, finally, wasn't Jesus a common name back then?
Notice the "so-called" in there?

> > And who else mentions that Jesus Christ had a brother?
> > What other soures can confirm that they (Jesus Christ from the bible
> > and Josephus' Jesus) are one and the same?
>
> By all means list the Greek texts that refer to a Jesus named Christ
> with a brother James.

Why would I do that?
Jospehus connected a james to a Jesus, so-called "the Christ."

So, if this is evidence for the existewnce of Jesus, we should be able
to find evidence somewhere that JC had a brother named James.

I am just asking for that evidence since those Jospehus apologetics
use his writings as evidence for Jesus.

> > > > and Tacitus - writing nearly two centuries after the
> > > > alleged events of the crucifixion
>
> Erm, ONE century.  And his text is the basis for all modern historical
> writing on the reign of Tiberius, so this is not a valid point.
>
> > > > - simply refers to the Christians
> > > > in reference to the burning of Rome.  Tacitus  criticizes Nero for
> > > > trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> > > > to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> > > > imperial palace.  All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
> > > > a man named Christus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > > > reign of Tiberius.  
>
> Perhaps if you quoted the passage you could point me to the word
> "supposedly" in it?

This does not mean that Tacitus wrote "supposedly."

it just means that Tacitus wrote about an event he heard about from
hear say, so it is not incorrect to refer to that event as having
allegedly happened, hence the "supposedly."

> > > > This is anecdotal material...
>
> Speculation is not a valid reason to ignore major historical sources.

Unless there are no actual evidcen from the time the event happened,
or at least third-party corroborating evidence.

And no, the NT is not evidence.

> > > That's is you opinion of course, but Annals, up to this days, is
> > > considered a history book by Tacitus covering the reign of Roman
> > > Emperors succeeding to Caesar Augustus.
>
> > Even if what Tacitus wrote is accurate down to every commas, all it
> > proves is that there were people who worshiped a guy called the Christ
> > who they believed was executed and resurrected and that they called
> > themselves Christians, which we already know anyway,  big deal.
>
> This seems to be obtuseness.

Qualify it any way you like, the fact remains that an author writing
about people calling themselves such and such and whose beliefs
consisted of such and such does not mean that those beliefs are
actually true.

> > Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
> > allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.
>
> Try the New Testament.

Get serious.

> But if you are simply demanding "evidence" of a kind which ancient
> history does not supply for almost anyone, then you are being
> dishonest with yourself.  If you want history based only on first hand
> testimony, by all means supply us with some first century historians
> who qualify for the reign of Tiberius.

Hey, I am not the one hell-bent on trying to prove that JC was real.
That would be your job.

Answer me this, why is it that from all the texts we have from over 50
writers who were alive at the time of the alleged JC life, not one of
them mention anything at all about JC?

> Good luck!

Indeed, you are the one who needs it!

> All the best,

Thanks.
______________________________________________________
I'll tell you what is wrong with America. We don't have enough of
God's ministers running the country.
-- Rev Tim LaHaye

[Duke of Omnium]

Golly. That would sure shoot to hell that whole borrowing Joseph of
Arimethea's tomb story in the gospel.

[Roger Pearse]

On 3 Apr, 21:11, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:49 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do I believe?  I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.  
>
> > No professor of ancient history at any university in the world would
> > agree, so you might want to consider whether you are believing
> > nonsense because you find it convenient.  It is, after all, a very
> > silly idea.
>
> I bet any reader who has been around these parts for more than a few
> months can spot at least two logical fallacies here...

Hey, if you want to believe nonsense, do feel free! <g> The rest of
us have no obligation to construct syllogisms to release you from this
self-inflicted injury of yours. Logic-chopping oneself stupid is not
a clever thing to do.

Listen: most intelligent people would hesitate to be as certain as you
are about a theory of history which every single person qualified to
have an opinion believes is tosh, even if they share your religion.
Because, after all, it isn't a religious or political question. Some
damn fool decided to pretend that Jesus didn't exist; idiots believed
him, because they found it convenient as an anti-Christian ploy.
Don't be one of them (unless being a dick is your thing).

> > The long passage looks odd, that everyone agrees on.  From the start
> > of critical scholarship in the 17th century to the end of the 19th
> > century, it was generally considered a later interpolation.  However
> > during the 20th century further manuscript witnesses were discovered
> > which suggested rather that the passage had been damaged, but with
> > substantially Josephan.  That is more or less the consensus today,
> > although substantial minorities remain who believe that it is genuine
> > as it stands, or else an interpolation.
>
> So, if it was damaged, any ideas what the original was like?

Probably words dropped out or restored.

> > Studies of all the objections and the history of scholarship were made
> > by Alice Whealey in "Josephus and Jesus", published by the SBL; and J.
> > Carleton Paget in the Journal of Theological Studies 2001.
>
> > One consequence of the internet is the amount of 19th century material
> > in circulation.  This is not reliable.
>
> > > > However, that's been refuted by the simple argument that all of the
> > > > manuscripts found in the hands of Christians, Jews and pagans contain
> > > > the same alleged interpolation.
> > > > It's possible to doctor or change a copy or a few, but very impossible
> > > > to change all.
>
> > This isn't a valid argument; most medieval copies of Greek texts
> > derive from a single common ancestor copy, usually of the 9th century.
>
> But how many people base an argument on a single paragraph form such a
> manuscript that is not corroborated anywhere else?

Erm, not quite sure what is being said here. Most statements about
events in antiquity come to us from a single source. But no-one bases
the idea that Jesus existed on the TF! Anyone who is silly enough to
pretend otherwise, of course, has to find excuses to ignore Josephus.
Watching such people make themselves stupid that way is entertaining,
if you're as cynical as I hope we both are.

No valid intellectual position is based on shutting your eyes to facts
and shouting "prove to me that light exists". Always be wary of any
set of arguments that amount to this. I think the position you're too
intelligent for the position you've found yourself in. But this is
the risk of atheism; it tends to rot the sense of logical balance of
those who adopt it, and they end up in these dimwit cul-de-sacs.
Jesus existed, as Marx existed, and L. Ron Hubbard existed. But to
believe what each had to say...? That is quite a different matter.

> > > Except that those are not copies of the original by a long shot.
> > > They are copies of copies, which were based on the one that was
> > > edited.
>
> > All texts, ancient or modern, reach us as copies of copies -- unless
> > we only have photocopies of author's manuscripts on our shelves!
>
> Thanks you for agreeing with me.

If you mean this, then you need to work on your reading comprehension!
<g> I was actually pointing out that your comment was a silly one, in
that it was true of every modern book, and therefore meaningless. But
I think you knew that and decided to be cute. I don't know about you,
but I consider that those who can only defend their comments by
childish tricks like that have already forfeited the argument. :-)

> > Josephus' works were preserved by the Greeks of the Eastern Roman
> > empire, later the Byzantine empire.  They were not preserved by Jews,
> > and of course all Greek pagan literature in the original language was
> > preserved by the Byzantines.
>
> > It is clear from Eusebius that the Testimonium was present in
> > manuscripts of Josephus in his day.  
>
> And can you prove that Eusebius himself COULD NOT have written the
> interpolation, or "damaged" the passage, as you sated above?

No. Nor indeed that it was not written by aliens. But there is no
reason to suppose either.

> He actually had very good reasons to do so.

Not that I know of. But if he did, speculation that he then did so
has no real utility. Everyone has motives to do things.

> > It is present in all manuscripts
> > known today.  It could certainly have come into existence between the
> > 1st and 4th centuries.  However we have to have a reason to suppose
> > this.  "Antiquities" was too long to circulate in complete copies, so
> > it circulated in decades.  Unfortunately only two authors refer to any
> > of books 11-20 of Antiquities at all in that period, so we have no
> > idea how widely this long and boring text circulated.
>
> So, at the vey least, its usefulness as an authority or reliable
> source on Jesus, a subject the author was not himself familiar with,
> is very suspect, to say the least.

This belief of yours does not follow from my comments. The TF tells
us relatively little about Jesus, it is true.

> > > > The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
> > > > the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
> > > > went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.
>
> > > Dude, your logic is seriously twisted...
> > > Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo Jesus was
> > > real!
>
> > Strawman.
>
> Agreed, it was not my strawman. I was actually pointing out that it
> was a fallacy.

Again, I think you have pretended that I was saying the opposite of
what I was. It doesn't help you, to have to resort to that.

> > > > The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
> > > > brother of Jesus.
>
> > > Some James character had a brother named Jesus, a very common name in
> > > those days.
>
> > This is not what the passage says.
>
> Doesn't the passage sate:
> "
> (...) and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,
> whose name was James (...)
> "

Indeed it does. You didn't quote it accurately in the first place;
but if you had, that would have destroyed the argument, wouldn't it?

Again, look at what you're having to write to defend this position.
You've had to misrepresent Josephus in order to make the argument.
People with brothers known as Jesus Christ are a bit thin on the
ground, so you omitted the "Christ" bit. And... you don't actually
know how common these names are. Hmm?

> > > And who else mentions that Jesus Christ had a brother?
> > > What other soures can confirm that they (Jesus Christ from the bible
> > > and Josephus' Jesus) are one and the same?
>
> > By all means list the Greek texts that refer to a Jesus named Christ
> > with a brother James.
>
> Why would I do that?

You made some assertions about "common names", remember? So you have
to demonstrate that they are common, if you believe your own
argument. Otherwise it goes straight down the toilet, you see; and
your intellectual honesty goes with it.

I'm not having a go at you. What I'm saying is that the position
you're repeating here is intellectually crap. Why not drop it, and
find an intellectual position that doesn't involve having to rubbish
evidence and use playground tricks to avoid instant collapse? It
would make your life much easier, trust me! :-)

> I am just asking for that evidence ...

Um, surely what you're trying to do is to demand people prove things
to you while you find excuses? This is such a common atheist habit,
that I feel justified in supposing that you've ended up doing the
same. At the end, the atheist can then proclaim triumphantly that
they won, because they were able to produce some quibble about all the
evidence, so no evidence exists, so they must be right.

If you or I had an accountant using those tactics to "prove" that you
don't owe any tax, you'd end up in prison. Don't foul your mind with
these tricks; the people who invented them meant you no good. No
valid intellectual position has to descend to this (NB: I'm not
talking atheism vs Christianity; I'm talking about the "Jesus did not
exist" crap)

> > > > > and Tacitus - writing nearly two centuries after the
> > > > > alleged events of the crucifixion
>
> > Erm, ONE century.  And his text is the basis for all modern historical
> > writing on the reign of Tiberius, so this is not a valid point.
>
> > > > > - simply refers to the Christians
> > > > > in reference to the burning of Rome.  Tacitus  criticizes Nero for
> > > > > trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> > > > > to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> > > > > imperial palace.  All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
> > > > > a man named Christus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > > > > reign of Tiberius.  
>
> > Perhaps if you quoted the passage you could point me to the word
> > "supposedly" in it?
>
> This does not mean that Tacitus wrote "supposedly."

Probably best not to use the word, then, hmm?

> it just means that Tacitus wrote about an event he heard about from
> hear say,

He doesn't say so, tho. So this is modern supposition.

> so it is not incorrect to refer to that event as having
> allegedly happened, hence the "supposedly."

It is wrong to state this, when the source doesn't say it. And
rubbishing testimony by speculation about sources is, you guessed it,
once again intellectually invalid.

> > > > > This is anecdotal material...
>
> > Speculation is not a valid reason to ignore major historical sources.
>
> Unless there are no actual evidcen from the time the event happened,
> or at least third-party corroborating evidence.
> And no, the NT is not evidence.

Unfortunately since you've already listed three sources here --
Tacitus, Josephus, and the NT -- this argument collapses.

Look again at the argument that the JM-idiots put. Surely their
inability to cope with evidence does not cause it to vanish? We all
know how this game is played; find excuses to ignore all the data, and
then claim that the manufactured absence of data means non-
existence. Only a fool would lie to themselves like that. Why join
the headbangers?

> > > > That's is you opinion of course, but Annals, up to this days, is
> > > > considered a history book by Tacitus covering the reign of Roman
> > > > Emperors succeeding to Caesar Augustus.
>
> > > Even if what Tacitus wrote is accurate down to every commas, all it
> > > proves is that there were people who worshiped a guy called the Christ
> > > who they believed was executed and resurrected and that they called
> > > themselves Christians, which we already know anyway,  big deal.
>
> > This seems to be obtuseness.
>
> Qualify it any way you like, the fact remains that an author writing
> about people calling themselves such and such and whose beliefs
> consisted of such and such does not mean that those beliefs are
> actually true.

No-one suggested that it does. But Tacitus doesn't do that (unless we
take the same view of everything he wrote!)

> > > Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
> > > allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.
>
> > Try the New Testament.
>
> Get serious.

It is rough, holding beliefs that involve shutting ones eyes and then
claiming one can't see. As I said earlier, why do it?

> > But if you are simply demanding "evidence" of a kind which ancient
> > history does not supply for almost anyone, then you are being
> > dishonest with yourself.  If you want history based only on first hand
> > testimony, by all means supply us with some first century historians
> > who qualify for the reign of Tiberius.
>

> Hey, I am not the one hell-bent on trying to prove ...

Whatever our position, we must all be in a position to discuss both
sides and offer evidence for them, and indicate the balance of
probabilities. You've been tricked into a position where all you have
to do is demand evidence of others and then find excuses to ignroe
it. That's easy, it's convenient, and those who encouraged you to do
it must be laughing their socks off. Convenience should always
trigger our self-critical reflex.

> Answer me this, why is it that from all the texts we have from over 50
> writers who were alive at the time of the alleged JC life, not one of
> them mention anything at all about JC?

This again is a stock argument, isn't it?

Ask yourself just which writers might these be, and how many have you
read? (hint) Ask yourself if you're repeating hearsay here.

Can you list the works of the writers, when they died, the content of
their work, and explain why their work MUST reference Jesus? I don't
think so. Most people couldn't. But unless you can, the above is
just a stock excuse. It won't do.

I, of course, really do have a good idea of who was around! That's
because ancient history is my hobby. But for the same reason, I
recognise a bogus argument. You know, it would really do you good to
look into that claim of yours; to list the 50 authors, what they
wrote, where and when they wrote, and look into their books. Really
it would.

I don't say that as a way to run you around. I myself do this, from
time to time, and research up claims. It's interesting to do so. I
did something of the kind myself once:

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=45

If we do this, we acquire something that most atheists lack; a basic
classical education. And surely that is worth having, just for
itself?

Just my thoughts. We really need to be careful when it comes to
things that we don't believe in. People who belong to hate-groups end
up believing any old tosh about the object of their dislike. It
narrows the mind, as all such things do. We see that the JM stuff
likewise can only be defended by tactics that dishonour those using
them (because I don't think anyone could have done it better than you
did, and you kept being tripped up solely by the fact that the JM
stuff you were working with was crap). Its better to move on from it,
into a wider world. Spend time with our enthusiasms, not our
dislikes!

[Dogooder]

On Mar 31, 9:17 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> D G,
>
> There is an outside possiblity that a person by the name of
> Jesus existed and a group of religious cranks named him as christ.
> But most of what is written is fable; since "IF" he existed he was no
> more than a leader of a jewish relgious sect; a philosopher at best.
> None of the hogwash written can be trusted which has been
> said of him.

So to you, "Annals" by Tacitus and "Antiquities of the Jews" by
Josephus are fables? What about "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by
Suetonius and "The Acts of Pontius Pilate"? And then there is the
extant letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan.

All of the above authors were not Christians and they did not have any
ulterior motive to propagate rumors and the like.

[hucktunes]

On Apr 5, 9:53 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All of the above authors were not Christians and they did not have any
> ulterior motive to propagate rumors and the like.

No, but those who later doctored their texts did.

[Dogooder]

On Apr 5, 10:53 am, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:53 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All of the above authors were not Christians and they did not have any
> > ulterior motive to propagate rumors and the like.
>
> No, but those who later doctored their texts did.

LOL, typical atheist response. The only one in question that was
purported to be is the interpolation of a certain passage in the
"Antiquities of the Jews." The rest are authentic, including the
passages about John the Baptist, Herod, James the Just and others.

To back-up your claim, can you provide us with citations on the
doctoring of the other passages and the other books?

[Answer_42]

On Apr 4, 5:19 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > No professor of ancient history at any university in the world would
> > > agree, so you might want to consider whether you are believing
> > > nonsense because you find it convenient. It is, after all, a very
> > > silly idea.
>
> > I bet any reader who has been around these parts for more than a few
> > months can spot at least two logical fallacies here...
>
> Hey, if you want to believe nonsense, do feel free! <g> The rest of
> us have no obligation to construct syllogisms to release you from this
> self-inflicted injury of yours. Logic-chopping oneself stupid is not
> a clever thing to do.

Actually, your statement was false.
Over the years, I have read texts by professors and seen interviews
with professors. Many of them have often doubted whether the JC of the
bible existed.
Some claims he was all made up, but most of those usually follow up by
stating that the JC of the bible was probably and amalgamation of
different characters and events.

So, becasue you stated an absolute, I was right in pointing out that
it was a fallacy.
Of course, if your reply is that those professors are idiots for
believing and thinking what they do, then, OK, you win.

> Listen: most intelligent people would hesitate to be as certain as you
> are about a theory of history which every single person qualified to
> have an opinion believes is tosh, even if they share your religion.
> Because, after all, it isn't a religious or political question. Some
> damn fool decided to pretend that Jesus didn't exist;

And here you are, arrogantly and condescendingly telling me that I am
fool, yet, if anybody disagrees with your position, he is a fool.

> idiots believed

Right.
There are plenty of reasons and evidence that points to JC being a
fabricated character.
Do not forget that until about 150 years ago, the subject was taboo,
and people would have been both excommunicated and ostracized for
professing such ideas. Very few dared.

Now, we have to make up for almost two thousand years of lies (not
that everything about Jesus is a lie, but trying to sort what is and
what isn't is very difficult after all those years of, "of-course-JC-
existed-it-is-obvious" attitude.

> him, because they found it convenient as an anti-Christian ploy.

Right.
Trying to establish the truth is tantamount to a conspiracy.
Get it.

> Don't be one of them (unless being a dick is your thing).

Once again, you are telling me: "If you do not agree with my position,
you are a dick."
And I am the dick?

<snip>

> > But how many people base an argument on a single paragraph form such a
> > manuscript that is not corroborated anywhere else?
>
> Erm, not quite sure what is being said here. Most statements about
> events in antiquity come to us from a single source. But no-one bases
> the idea that Jesus existed on the TF!

Maybe not.
But, when we press Christians to prove that JC was a real person, they
always fall back on Josephus.
So it is like a single source trying to prove a fact.

> Anyone who is silly enough to
> pretend otherwise, of course, has to find excuses to ignore Josephus.
> Watching such people make themselves stupid that way is entertaining,
> if you're as cynical as I hope we both are.
>
> No valid intellectual position is based on shutting your eyes to facts
> and shouting "prove to me that light exists". Always be wary of any
> set of arguments that amount to this. I think the position you're too
> intelligent for the position you've found yourself in. But this is
> the risk of atheism;

It is not about atheism.

It is about me having read many sources, obviously, not as many as you
have, and having found the material wanting.

> it tends to rot the sense of logical balance of
> those who adopt it, and they end up in these dimwit cul-de-sacs.
> Jesus existed,

We do not know that as a fact.

> as Marx existed, and L. Ron Hubbard existed. But to
> believe what each had to say...? That is quite a different matter.

True.
But in the case of JC, we have people believing what most likely is a
made up character said!

<snip>

> > And can you prove that Eusebius himself COULD NOT have written the
> > interpolation, or "damaged" the passage, as you sated above?
>
> No. Nor indeed that it was not written by aliens. But there is no
> reason to suppose either.
>
> > He actually had very good reasons to do so.
>
> Not that I know of. But if he did, speculation that he then did so
> has no real utility. Everyone has motives to do things.

Exactly my point.

Sometimes the motives are so unrelated to an event that we can safely
argue that they played no part in the result.
Not so with Eusebius.
He had clear motives.

<snip>

> > > > > The irrefutable passages are the parts where Josephus wrote about John
> > > > > the Baptist, the one who baptized Jesus Christ, his cousin. Josephus
> > > > > went on the write about his life, including when Herod killed him.
>
> > > > Dude, your logic is seriously twisted...
> > > > Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo Jesus was
> > > > real!
>
> > > Strawman.
>
> > Agreed, it was not my strawman. I was actually pointing out that it
> > was a fallacy.
>
> Again, I think you have pretended that I was saying the opposite of
> what I was. It doesn't help you, to have to resort to that.

Actually, my original comment (" Dude, your logic is seriously

twisted... Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo

Jesus was real!") was in response to what a third party wrote
(Dogooder). You interjected a comment ("Strawman") which seems to
agreee with my reply to Dogooder's comment (read it again, I was in
fact pointing out that we was bringing up a strawman, but without
using the word "strawman"...). So I was not pretending anything.
You wrote something about me having reading comprhension problems..
That may be the case sometimes, but clearly not this time.

> > > > > The other passage is where Josephus wrote about James the Just, the
> > > > > brother of Jesus.
>
> > > > Some James character had a brother named Jesus, a very common name in
> > > > those days.
>
> > > This is not what the passage says.
>
> > Doesn't the passage sate:
> > "
> > (...) and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,
> > whose name was James (...)
> > "
>
> Indeed it does. You didn't quote it accurately in the first place;
> but if you had, that would have destroyed the argument, wouldn't it?

Right, and what I did is different from what you did exactly how?
(HInt, you chose to disreagrd ""the so-called" in the text and seem to
read it as Jesus Christ, which I did not do, because of the "so-
called.")

> Again, look at what you're having to write to defend this position.
> You've had to misrepresent Josephus in order to make the argument.

No, I did not.
Read on below.

> People with brothers known as Jesus Christ are a bit thin on the
> ground, so you omitted the "Christ" bit. And... you don't actually
> know how common these names are. Hmm?

My argument was actually the other way around.
I asked a question, and I am still waiting for an answer because you
chose to belittle me instead of addressing the point I made.

Here it is again:

If Josephus is right, JC had a brother named James.
Right?
So, who can corroborate this?
Maybe it was a well known fact taht JC had a brother names James ("the
Just?"), if it is, I would like to know where I can confirm this.
I know that the bible has a few reference to to some brothers Jesus
may have had.
But not all Christians agree (I believe the RC church claims that
James was not a real brother in the genetic sense) and many claim that
the bible writers used the word "brother" has in "spiritual" brother.
Others make the argument that he was from a Jewish family and Jewish
families were supposed to have many children. Yet, if one uses an
argument like that, one must go all the way.
According to Jewish tradition, Jewish men had to marry at a fairly
young age, therefore Jesus must have been married.
But I have never heard any biblical scholar claim that Jesus was in
fact married.
Some have suggested that he might have been, but I seriously doubt
that it is the official Christian position.

So, you cannot have it both ways.

Since Josephus was just writing what Christians had been saying, not
being a first hand witness himself, am I wrong in asking for
corroboration outside of the bible?

If only Josephus (outside the bible) makes that claim, then it adds
weight to the argument that maybe he was talking about another JC, or
to the argument that the JC in the bible is an aggregate of people/
events.

> > > > And who else mentions that Jesus Christ had a brother?
> > > > What other soures can confirm that they (Jesus Christ from the bible
> > > > and Josephus' Jesus) are one and the same?
>
> > > By all means list the Greek texts that refer to a Jesus named Christ
> > > with a brother James.
>
> > Why would I do that?
>
> You made some assertions about "common names", remember? So you have
> to demonstrate that they are common, if you believe your own
> argument. Otherwise it goes straight down the toilet, you see; and
> your intellectual honesty goes with it.

Nope
It seems that I did not make myself clear.
I tried again above.

In any case, as a specialist of old manuscripts and the likes, are you
telling me that you do not agree that Jesus was a common Jewish name
back then?
Seriously?

> I'm not having a go at you. What I'm saying is that the position
> you're repeating here is intellectually crap.

Why is it crap to ask where we can corroborate that as Josephus wrote,
JC had a brother named James?

> Why not drop it, and
> find an intellectual position that doesn't involve having to rubbish
> evidence and use playground tricks to avoid instant collapse? It
> would make your life much easier, trust me! :-)

Call it whatever you like, belittle me as much as you want, I still
think that my question regarding the corroboration of JC'S alleged
brother(s) from sources outside the bible is legitimate.

> > I am just asking for that evidence ...
>
> Um, surely what you're trying to do is to demand people prove things
> to you while you find excuses?

No.

> This is such a common atheist habit,

Again, with the sweeping "atheist conspiracy generalization."
Did I write or suggest that what ever you wrote is hogwash because you
are a deluded ignorant christian?
I do not think so.

I honestly tried to engage you and make arguments based on your
replies.
No hidden agenda or tricks involved.

> that I feel justified in supposing that you've ended up doing the
> same. At the end, the atheist can then proclaim triumphantly that
> they won, because they were able to produce some quibble about all the
> evidence, so no evidence exists, so they must be right.

It is just that contrary to you, I find the evidence (or lack of
evidence I should say!) insufficient to proclaim that JC was defnitely
a real person as described in the bible.
You can belittle me all you want, but in doing so, you are doing
exacly what you accuse me of.

> If you or I had an accountant using those tactics to "prove" that you
> don't owe any tax, you'd end up in prison. Don't foul your mind with
> these tricks; the people who invented them meant you no good. No
> valid intellectual position has to descend to this (NB: I'm not
> talking atheism vs Christianity; I'm talking about the "Jesus did not
> exist" crap)

And why is it crap, exactly?

> > > > > > and Tacitus - writing nearly two centuries after the
> > > > > > alleged events of the crucifixion
>
> > > Erm, ONE century. And his text is the basis for all modern historical
> > > writing on the reign of Tiberius, so this is not a valid point.
>
> > > > > > - simply refers to the Christians
> > > > > > in reference to the burning of Rome. Tacitus criticizes Nero for
> > > > > > trying to blame the fire on the Christians when it was Nero who wanted
> > > > > > to level that section of the city in order to build himself a new
> > > > > > imperial palace. All Tacitus says is the Christians were followers of
> > > > > > a man named Christus who was supposed to have been executed during the
> > > > > > reign of Tiberius.
>
> > > Perhaps if you quoted the passage you could point me to the word
> > > "supposedly" in it?
>
> > This does not mean that Tacitus wrote "supposedly."
>
> Probably best not to use the word, then, hmm?
>
> > it just means that Tacitus wrote about an event he heard about from
> > hear say,
>
> He doesn't say so, tho. So this is modern supposition.

Oh, so now, despite the total lack of evidence it is suddenly OK to
infer stuff from an ancient text, yet when I do it, it is bad?

His whole text is written in no uncertain terms that he was repoting
what others have said to him or what he heard, not events he himslef
witnessed.
He was neither reporting the words from first-hand witness.

How is it unacceptable to conclude that it was hear-say from his point
of view?

> > so it is not incorrect to refer to that event as having
> > allegedly happened, hence the "supposedly."
>
> It is wrong to state this, when the source doesn't say it. And
> rubbishing testimony by speculation about sources is, you guessed it,
> once again intellectually invalid.

OK.
If you can demonstrate how we can read his text and take the events he
writes about as not being hear-say, I will gladly accept them as
reports from first-hand witness; which technically would still be hear-
say, but if it is first generation hear-say, I will find this more
credible and accept it as such.

> > > > > > This is anecdotal material...
>
> > > Speculation is not a valid reason to ignore major historical sources.
>
> > Unless there are no actual evidcen from the time the event happened,
> > or at least third-party corroborating evidence.
> > And no, the NT is not evidence.
>
> Unfortunately since you've already listed three sources here --
> Tacitus, Josephus, and the NT -- this argument collapses.

No, in fact, it does not.
None of those source are from the time the events occured.
They are all after the fact, not one of them from first-hand
witnesses.

> Look again at the argument that the JM-idiots put. Surely their
> inability to cope with evidence

What evidence again?
"After the fact hear-say" is evidence?

> does not cause it to vanish? We all
> know how this game is played; find excuses to ignore all the data, and
> then claim that the manufactured absence of data means non-
> existence. Only a fool would lie to themselves like that. Why join
> the headbangers?

Meanwhle, you find it absolutely acceptable to take what is at best
circumstantial evidence and parade it as fact.

<snip>

> > Qualify it any way you like, the fact remains that an author writing
> > about people calling themselves such and such and whose beliefs
> > consisted of such and such does not mean that those beliefs are
> > actually true.
>
> No-one suggested that it does.

So why is the Tacitus paragraph always used by christian as "evidence"
that Jesus was real?

> But Tacitus doesn't do that (unless we
> take the same view of everything he wrote!)

Right.
Everything Tacitus wrote was written in the form "There were people
who believed so and so".
He never wrote facts as facts and claimed that they were facts, like
"So and so did such and such..."

All he did was write that during that time there people who believed
certain things.
This does not mean that what those people believed is actually based
on actual facts.
When Tacitus wrote about facts, I am sure he did not write it in that
way.

> > > > Now, go and find us some first hand testimony from the time Jesus was
> > > > allegedly alive and I will definitely be interested in that.
>
> > > Try the New Testament.
>
> > Get serious.
>
> It is rough, holding beliefs that involve shutting ones eyes and then
> claiming one can't see. As I said earlier, why do it?

Now you have stopped making sense all together.
My eyes are wide open.
I read the NT, I see all the errors and contradictions.
Instead of inventing complicated apologies for those errors as it has
been done by christian scholars for over one thousand years, I come to
different conclusions based on logic and on the knowledge of the way
the people operate in general. None of the conclusions I come up with
are by any means a stretch of the imagination.
You know there is something fishy when biblical specialists operate
with the label "apologetic"... Do you now of any other discipline that
needs official apologetics?

> > > But if you are simply demanding "evidence" of a kind which ancient
> > > history does not supply for almost anyone, then you are being
> > > dishonest with yourself. If you want history based only on first hand
> > > testimony, by all means supply us with some first century historians
> > > who qualify for the reign of Tiberius.
>
> > Hey, I am not the one hell-bent on trying to prove ...
>
> Whatever our position, we must all be in a position to discuss both
> sides and offer evidence for them, and indicate the balance of
> probabilities. You've been tricked into a position where all you have
> to do is demand evidence of others and then find excuses to ignroe
> it.

Really?
Did I ignore Josephus, Tacitus? The NT?
You are complaining because I do not agree with the conclusions you
draw from those.
This is different from "ignoring" the "evidence."

> That's easy, it's convenient, and those who encouraged you to do
> it must be laughing their socks off. Convenience should always
> trigger our self-critical reflex.

Who said anything about convenience?
This is your excuse for dismissing those who disagree with your
position.

You are the one who seem to have the blind faith, not me.
Blind faith is way more of a convenience than evidence analysis and
coming your OWN conclusions based on that evidence, or lack thereof.

In fact, if you were more self-critical, you would realize that many
of the belief you hold are nonsensical and totally illogical.

> > Answer me this, why is it that from all the texts we have from over 50
> > writers who were alive at the time of the alleged JC life, not one of
> > them mention anything at all about JC?
>
> This again is a stock argument, isn't it?
>
> Ask yourself just which writers might these be, and how many have you
> read? (hint) Ask yourself if you're repeating hearsay here.
>
> Can you list the works of the writers, when they died, the content of
> their work, and explain why their work MUST reference Jesus? I don't
> think so. Most people couldn't. But unless you can, the above is
> just a stock excuse. It won't do.

I forgot that for believers, "lack of evidence" is always dismissed as
not being representative of evidence of lack... whatever the
circumstances.

In any case, while you dismiss my question as being a boring old cop
out, you have not answered the question.

Explain logically why nobody ever bothered to write abotu this
miraculous man who raised the dead, walked on water, cured the blind,
multiplied the fish and bread, turned water into wine, cured the
lepers, and, then, the kicker, came back form the dead.

> I, of course, really do have a good idea of who was around! That's
> because ancient history is my hobby. But for the same reason, I
> recognise a bogus argument. You know, it would really do you good to
> look into that claim of yours; to list the 50 authors, what they
> wrote, where and when they wrote, and look into their books. Really
> it would.
>
> I don't say that as a way to run you around. I myself do this, from
> time to time, and research up claims. It's interesting to do so. I
> did something of the kind myself once:
>
> http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=45
>
> If we do this, we acquire something that most atheists lack; a basic
> classical education. And surely that is worth having, just for
> itself?

I may not be the expert you are on ancient manuscripts, but that does
not mean I am dumb.
You can go on thinking that if you want, I don't really care. I am
used to the condescending attitude that comes with the certain beliefs
that are associated with blind faith.
I have exchanged with omprem and Brock before, and Joe was well.

However, we do have texts from some historians and philiophers, they
certainly would have reasons to write abot this new "god made into
flesh" business and all his new teachings and miracles.

> Just my thoughts. We really need to be careful when it comes to
> things that we don't believe in.

True, but you have to be even more careful when you believe based on
blind faith.
At least, I do not have a secret agenda and I am not trying to make
reality fit into a preexisting box I chose to believe in, even though
you certainly think that I want to do this..
Let me assure you that I do not.

I did not one day decide to be an atheist and then set out to
discredit everything believers use to justify their beliefs.

I read a lot of books, maybe not as much s you, but way more than the
average person, in school and in life I did engage people about
philosophy and religion (In hihg school, I was one of the few who were
not bored in the Religious Education class, the same in college when
I took the 4 mandatory philosophy class).
I found the evidence lacking and found that the reasoning used to
explain how religions and god beliefs are man made to be perfectly
logical.
Then, much later, I thought about the word atheist, and realized it
was an accurate word I had found to describe my position regarding
gods. But remember what the word means; it says nothing abotu
worldview or philosophy. So you can stop with all your unnecessarily
inaccurate generalizations about what atheists are like.

> People who belong to hate-groups end

Who said I belonged to a hate-group?
You chastise me on many counts, yet you are yourself guilty of quite a
few "sins" here...

> up believing any old tosh about the object of their dislike. It
> narrows the mind, as all such things do.

And blind adherence to dead dogmas does not narrow the mind?

> We see that the JM stuff

JM stuff???

> likewise can only be defended by tactics that dishonour those using
> them (because I don't think anyone could have done it better than you

Right, those you do not come to the same conclusions you do are
dishonorable .

> did, and you kept being tripped up solely by the fact that the JM
> stuff you were working with was crap). Its better to move on from it,
> into a wider world. Spend time with our enthusiasms, not our
> dislikes!

You do not need to patronize me here.
Trust me, I am not coming from a "dislike" angle.

> All the best,

Why?
After insulting me all over your reply, surely you do not mean this?
____________________________________________________
If God is in fact separated from the government, then we can never
possibly have a godly government. There's no way for America to be
good if she's not godly.
-- Joyce Meyer

[hucktunes]

On Apr 6, 7:59 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To back-up your claim, can you provide us with citations on the
> doctoring of the other passages and the other books?

I can't find it now but the word Chrestus in Tacitus was changed to
Christus. Chrestus means Slave in Latin. The early Christians were
very busy changing texts, forging documents and killing people that
protested. And they're still doing it to this day.

[DoctorWinslow]

On Apr 6, 5:04 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:59 am, Dogooder <albertdogoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To back-up your claim, can you provide us with citations on the
> > doctoring of the other passages and the other books?
>
> I can't find it now but the word Chrestus in Tacitus was changed to
> Christus. Chrestus means Slave in Latin. The early Christians were
> very busy changing texts, forging documents and killing people that
> protested. And they're still doing it to this day.

It was Suetonius who wrote Chresto and was translated as Chrestus in
English. Here's the passage in "Claudius 25.1-5" At any rate, he was
referring to Christ.

Latin: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.
Germanorum legatis in orchestra sedere permisit, simplicitate eorum et
fiducia commotus, quod in popularia deducti, cum animadvertissent
Parthos et Armenios sedentis in senatu, ad eadem loca sponte
transierant, nihilo deteriorem virtutem aut condicionem suam
praedicantes.

English: Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. He allowed the
envoys of the Germans to sit in the orchestra, led by their naïve self-
confidence; for when they had been taken to the seats occupied by the
common people and saw the Parthian and Armenian envoys sitting with
the senate, they moved of their own accord to the same part of the
theater, protesting that their merits and rank were no whit inferior.

In another book, he explicitly wrote Christians, from the Latin
Christiani in "Nero 16.2"

Latin: Multa sub eo et animadversa severe et coercita nec minus
instituta: adhibitus sumptibus modus; publicae cenae ad sportulas
redactae; interdictum ne quid in popinis cocti praeter legumina aut
holera veniret, cum antea nullum non obsonii genus proponeretur;
afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac
maleficae; vetiti quadrigariorum lusus, quibus inveterata licentia
passim vagantibus fallere ac furari per iocum ius erat; pantomimorum
factiones cum ipsis simul relegatae.

English: During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put
down, and no fewer new laws were made. A limit was set to
expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of
food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was
forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before
every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on
the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous
superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers,
who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at
large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The
pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Do you have anything else?

[DoctorWinslow]

On Apr 6, 3:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, my original comment (" Dude, your logic is seriously
> twisted... Josephus talks a great length about John the Baptist, ergo
> Jesus was real!") was in response to what a third party wrote
> (Dogooder).

I like to ask you a very simple question. Since no Josephus scholar
has objected to the passage about John the Baptist, do you think that
he did not write about Jesus Christ?

[hucktunes]

On Apr 7, 8:51 am, DoctorWinslow <doctorwins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was Suetonius who wrote Chresto and was translated as Chrestus in
> English. Here's the passage in "Claudius 25.1-5" At any rate, he was

That's not what I was referring to. It as a photo of text by Tacitus
or a copier that showed evidence of the e in Chrestus changed to i.
Chrestus meant 'the good' or worthy and was an epitaph applied to a
worthy slave. Sometimes a slave was known only as Chrestus, the word
used as a name. Both Suetonius and Tacitus used the word Chrestus and
both were later amended to Christus.

[DoctorWinslow]

On Apr 7, 12:31 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 8:51 am, DoctorWinslow <doctorwins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was Suetonius who wrote Chresto and was translated as Chrestus in
> > English. Here's the passage in "Claudius 25.1-5" At any rate, he was
>
> That's not what I was referring to. It as a photo of text by Tacitus
> or a copier that showed evidence of the e in Chrestus changed to i.
> Chrestus meant 'the good' or worthy and was an epitaph applied to a
> worthy slave. Sometimes a slave was known only as Chrestus, the word
> used as a name. Both Suetonius and Tacitus used the word Chrestus and
> both were later amended to Christus.

Well, it's clear from Suetonius that the Latin word is Chresto and was
translated to Chrestus in English. I'm not aware of the Tacitus part
because on Annals 15:44, he wrote Christus and Christians as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign
of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,
and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,
again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but
even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of
the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest
was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their
information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the
crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of
every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of
beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to
crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly
illumination, when daylight had expired."

You might be talking about the claim of Oskar Augustsson. He said that
in accordance with earlier scholarship, shown that the 'i' in
Christianos (Christians) in the text of the earliest extant
manuscript, was actually changed from an e; "Accordingly, the scribe
originally wrote about Chrestiani, Chrestians."

Source: Augustsson, Oskar (2008). "The Quest for Chrest – an e-
llumination". Institute for Higher Critical Studies.

The above didn't make any difference however, because whether it's an
"e" or "i", the word means Christians.

[Answer_42]

What?
Why do you bring up Dogooder's strawman again?

The passage about John has not been considered as an interpolation.
That passage has nothing to do with JC:
"
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came
from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against
John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good
man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to
righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to
come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable
to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or
the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the
body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand
by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for
they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod,
who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put
it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they
seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by
putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not
bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him
repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a
prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I
before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an
opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment
upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.
"
(From Wiki.)

Both passages about JC have been thought of as interpolation, either
in their entirety, or in parts.

So what does the fact that he wrote about a John the Baptist got to do
with JC?
_______________________________________________
In the mind of the Creator there is no hesitancy whatever in
proclaiming His jealousy, and He has no dislike for the word.
Believers who are ashamed of it do not realize what it means....
-- Rev Frederick David Niedermeyer

[DoctorWinslow]

Without the interpolation, even the atheist scholars agreed that
Josephus wrote about Jesus Christ. Do you know that fact?

Their only objection is the interpolation because, it suggested His
divinity.

> So what does the fact that he wrote about a John the Baptist got to do
> with JC?

The fact is that John the Baptist is the cousin of Jesus Christ. He
was the one who baptized Jesus Christ and others. That's the fact. Do
you even know who John the Baptist was?

[Answer_42]

Rather, it has been accepted by some that some of the words Jospephus
wrote must have been a reference to a Jesus, the one the Christians
called Christ.

> Their only objection is the interpolation because, it suggested His
> divinity.

No.
The idea that the bits about Jesus are interpolations are based on
textual studies, not just because some don't like their content.

> > So what does the fact that he wrote about a John the Baptist got to do
> > with JC?
>
> The fact is that John the Baptist is the cousin of Jesus Christ. He
> was the one who baptized Jesus Christ and others. That's the fact.

Really? A fact?
Besides the bible, who can confirm that John baptized Jesus?
How do you distinguish this factual bit from the non-factual ones in
the bible, besides by stating that the bits you need to support an
argument are by default factual and the others allegoric, of course.?

Besides Luke, who claimed that they were cousins? (In fact, Luke
claims that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, so that would make John
and Jesus second cousins, no?)
Many scholars accept that this was a fabrication by whoever wrote
Luke.

> Do
> you even know who John the Baptist was?

Yes.
And again, the fact that Josephus wrote a a long paragrpah about John
the Baptist has no bearing whatsoever on proving whether Jesus was a
real person or not.
_____________________________________________
If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle