The Da Vinci Deception: Did Constantine Invent The Divinity Of Jesus?
Sound of Trumpet
Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
By Erwin W. Lutzer
Reprinted from "The Da Vinci Deception" by Erwin W. Lutzer with
permission from Tyndale House Publishers.
Church historians agree that next to the events in the New Testament,
the most important event in the history of Christianity is the
conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312. In brief,
here's the story: Constantine's troops were positioned at the
Milvian Bridge just outside of Rome, where they were preparing to
overthrow the Roman emperor Maxentius. A victory would, in effect, make
Constantine the sole ruler of the empire. But the night before the
battle Constantine saw a vision that changed his life and the history
of the church.
In the words of Eusebius of Caesarea, who was both a historian and a
confidant of Constantine, the emperor was praying to a pagan god when
"he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross in the light of the
heavens, above the sun and an inscription, Conquer By This attached to
it...Then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign
which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make an likeness
of this sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a
safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
To make a long story short, Constantine crossed over the bridge and won
the battle, fighting under the banner of the Christian cross. Later he
issued the Edict of Milan, decreeing that Christians were no longer to
be persecuted. And now, although a politician, he took leadership in
the doctrinal disputes that were disrupting the unity in his empire.
Let's travel back to Nicaea (modern-day Iznik in Turkey, about 125
miles from modern-day Istanbul) to find out what happened there 1,700
years ago.
Welcome to the Council
Those of us reared in a country where religion is largely private and
where diversity is gladly tolerated might find it difficult to believe
that in the early fourth century, doctrinal disputes were tearing
Constantine's empire apart. It is said that if you bought a load of
bread in the marketplace of Constantinople, you might be asked whether
you believe that God the Son was begotten or unbegotten and if you
asked about the quality of the bread you might be told that the Father
is greater and the Son is less.
Adding fuel to these disagreements was a man named Arius, who was
gaining a wide following by teaching that Christ was not fully God but
a created god of sorts. He believed that Christ was more than a man but
less than God. Arius was a great communicator, and because he put his
doctrinal ideas into musical jingles, his ideas became widely accepted.
Although many church bishops declared him a heretic, the disputes
nonetheless continued. Constantine called the first ecumenical council
at Nicaea, hoping to suppress dissent and unify Christianity. In fact,
the emperor even paid the expenses of the bishops who gathered.
Constantine did not care about the finer points of theology, so
practically any creed would have satisfied him-as long as it would
unify his subjects. As one historian has said, "Christianity became
both a way to God and a way to unite the empire." He gave the opening
speech himself, telling the delegates that doctrinal disunity was worse
than war.
This intrusion of a politician into the doctrines and procedures of the
church was resented by some of the delegates, but welcomed by others.
For those who had gone through a period of bitter persecution, this
conference, carried on under the imperial banner, was heaven on earth.
The Great Debate
More than three hundred bishops met at Nicaea to settle disputes about
Christology-that is, the doctrine of Christ. When Constantine
finished his opening speech, the proceedings began.
Overwhelmingly, the council declared Arius a heretic. Though Arius was
given an opportunity to defend his views, the delegates recognized that
if Christ was not fully God, then God was not the Redeemer of mankind.
To say that Christ was created was to deny the clear teaching of
Scripture: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers of
authorities; all things were created by him and for him" (Colossians
1:16). Clearly, if he created all things, he most assuredly could not
have been created himself! To this passage many others that teach the
deity of Christ were added, both from the Gospels and the Epistles
(John 1:1; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8; etc).
Affirming the divinity of Jesus, the delegates turned their attention
to the question of how he related to the Father. Eusebius the historian
presented his view, claiming that Jesus had a nature that was similar
to that of God the Father.
Present, but not invited to the actual proceedings, was the theologian
Athanasius, who believed that even to say that Christ is similar to God
the Father is to miss the full biblical teaching about Christ's
divinity. His argument that Christ could only be God in the fullest
sense if his nature was the same as that of the Father was expressed by
his representative, Marcellus, a bishop from Asia Minor in the
proceedings. Constantine seeing that the debate was going on in
Athanasius's favor, accepted the suggestion of a scholarly bishop and
advised the delegates to use the Greek word homoousion, which means
"one and the same." In other words, Jesus had the very same nature
as the Father.
The council agreed, and today we have the famous Nicene Creed. As
anyone who has ever quoted the creed knows, Jesus Christ is declared to
be "Light of Light, very God of very God' begotten, not made, being
of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made"
(italics added). There can be no question that the delegates affirmed
that Christ was deity in the fullest sense
Why should we be interested in this debate? Some critics have been
amused that the Council of Nicaea split over one "iota." The
difference between the Greek words for similar and same is but one
letter of the alphabet: the letter i. Some people argue that it's
just like theologians to split hairs, arguing over minutiae that have
little to do with the real world. How much better to help the poor or
get involved in the politics of the day!
But Williams E. Hordern tells a story that illustrates how a single
letter or comma can change the meaning of a message. Back in the days
when messages were sent by telegraph there was a code for each
punctuation mark. A woman touring Europe cabled her husband to ask
whether she could buy a beautiful bracelet for $75,000. The husband
sent this message back: "No, price too high." The cable operator,
in transmitting the message, missed the signal for the comma. The woman
received the message "No price too high." She bought the bracelet;
the husband sued the company and won! After that, people using Morse
code spelled out all punctuation. Clearly, a comma or an "iota" can
make a big difference when communicating a message!
Although the Council of Nicaea was divided over the Greek words similar
and same, the issue was incredibly important. Even if Christ were the
highest and most noble creature of God's creation, God would then be
only indirectly involved in the salvation of man As one historian has
said, Athanasius realized that "only if Christ is God, without
qualification, has God entered humanity, and only then have fellowship
with God, the forgiveness of sings, the truth of God, and immortality
been certainly brought to men."
In The Da Vinci Code, we read that the doctrine of Christ's deity
passed by a "relatively close vote." That is fiction, since only
five out of more than three hundred bishops (the number is actually
believed to have been 318) protested the creed. In fact, in the end,
only two refused to sign it. The outcome was not exactly a
cliff-hanger.
That's not to say that the Council of Nicaea ended all the disputes.
Arianism continued to have its adherents, and subsequent emperors sided
with whichever view suited them at the time. But from this point on,
Christian orthodoxy maintained that Jesus was "God of very God."
Whether Constantine was a very genuine convert to Christianity is a
matter of debate. We do know that he had been a worshipper of the sun
god before his "conversion," and it appears that he carried on such
worship for the rest of his life. He is even credited with
standardizing Christian worship by mandating Sunday as the official day
of worship. There is no doubt that he used Christianity to further his
own political ends.
But did he invent the divinity of Jesus? Before the council, was Christ
believed to be just a remarkable man? There is not a single shred of
historical evidence for such a notion. Not only was Christ's deity
the consensus of the delegates, but as can easily be shown, this
doctrine was held by the church centuries before the council met.
Contrary to Teabing's claim in The Da Vinci Code, many believed that
Christ was more than a "mortal prophet" before the council met in
AD 325. We must take a moment to read the writings of the apostolic
fathers, those who knew the apostles and were taught by them. Then we
can investigate writings of the second-and-third-generation leaders,
all affirming in their own way the divinity of Jesus.
Conspiracy of Doves
Please tell me something. Why is it that only Christian fundementalists
believe that The DaVinci Code is intended to be taken as literal
history? I know that you have a hard time telling fantasy from reality
(your bible is a perfect example) but come on!
Mark K. Bilbo
Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>
>
>
> Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>
> There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
There's not a single shred of historical evidince Jesus existed.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
forgeries) for the existence of jebus. If you disagree, which you will of
course, prepare to prove your point. Failing that, prepare to hang your
head in shame for being a fucking liar.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
thomas p
<soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>
>
>
>Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>
>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>
>
>By Erwin W. Lutzer
>
>Reprinted from "The Da Vinci Deception" by Erwin W. Lutzer with
>permission from Tyndale House Publishers.
>
>
>
>Church historians agree that next to the events in the New Testament,
>the most important event in the history of Christianity is the
>conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312. In brief,
>here's the story: Constantine's troops were positioned at the
>Milvian Bridge just outside of Rome, where they were preparing to
>overthrow the Roman emperor Maxentius. A victory would, in effect, make
>Constantine the sole ruler of the empire. But the night before the
>battle Constantine saw a vision that changed his life and the history
>of the church.
>In the words of Eusebius of Caesarea, who was both a historian and a
>confidant of Constantine, the emperor was praying to a pagan god when
>"he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross in the light of the
>heavens, above the sun and an inscription, Conquer By This attached to
>it...Then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign
>which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make an likeness
>of this sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a
>safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
People really believe such nonsense. That is incredibly sad.
snip of remaining garbage
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
johac
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>
>
>
> Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>
> There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>
Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
ever existed.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Martin Kess
which states:
evidence (Christian)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a predetermined conclusion or
judgment.
raven1
<soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>
>Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>
>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
There's also not a single shred of historical evidence for the
Resurrection.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
kathryn
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1142567117.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>
>
>
> Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>
and more importantly does anyone give a fuck?
duke
<MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>Fundie brat babbled:
>
>> There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>
>While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>forgeries) for the existence of jebus.
Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
You know, just like a historical event where the eye witness is no longer alive.
> If you disagree, which you will of
>course, prepare to prove your point. Failing that, prepare to hang your
>head in shame for being a fucking liar.
I win.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
655321
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:41:31 +0100, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
> <MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Fundie brat babbled:
>>
>>
>>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>>
>>While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>>forgeries) for the existence of jebus.
>
>
> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
You mean like the witnesses who saw and reported on Babe the Blue Ox?
> You know, just like a historical event where the eye witness is no longer alive.
>
>>If you disagree, which you will of
>>course, prepare to prove your point. Failing that, prepare to hang your
>>head in shame for being a fucking liar.
>
> I win.
To the degree that this might be true (Heh.), the truth loses.
655321
DanielSan
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:41:31 +0100, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
> <MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Fundie brat babbled:
>>
>>
>>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>>
>>While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>>forgeries) for the existence of jebus.
>
>
> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
Which eye witnesses? Got any names?
<snip>
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> You mean like the witnesses who saw and reported on Babe the Blue Ox?
Hehe :)
I'm tempted to ask puke to tell us from when the written "eyewitness"
reports are, as examined by today's bible scholars. But then, we know what
would happen...
Me: (points out that for some strange reason all those "eyewitness" reports
are from decades after the supposed death of jebus)
puke: (silence)
(Weeks later)
puke: (repeats its lie)
duke
wrote:
>> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
>You mean like the witnesses who saw and reported on Babe the Blue Ox?
Could be. I never heard of Babe the Blue Ox, but if there was a live eye
witness as there were for other historical events and the life and times of
Jesus the Christ, then I guess so.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:41:31 +0100, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
>> <MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fundie brat babbled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>>>
>>>While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>>>forgeries) for the existence of jebus.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
>
>Which eye witnesses? Got any names?
Name one that you can certify saw George Washington sign the DofI rather than
his farm foreman.
Bill
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2p4o121sqnlj5cl58...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:23:41 GMT, 655321
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
>>You mean like the witnesses who saw and reported on Babe the Blue Ox?
>
> Could be. I never heard of Babe the Blue Ox, but if there was a live eye
> witness as there were for other historical events and the life and times
> of
> Jesus the Christ, then I guess so.
Get your head out of your mythical gods ass.
The 'only' evidence for the existence of Jesus are the Bibles which are
obviously nothing but books of myths, fables,
contradictions and impossible stories. There are NO official historical
records of the time that confirms the existence
of Jesus the Christ god.
DanielSan
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:01:36 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:41:31 +0100, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
>>><MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fundie brat babbled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>>>>
>>>>While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>>>>forgeries) for the existence of jebus.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
>>
>>Which eye witnesses? Got any names?
>
>
> Name one that you can certify saw George Washington sign the DofI rather than
> his farm foreman.
Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. Answer the
question. What eyewitnesses are you referring to, duke?
Malcolm
>
> Please tell me something. Why is it that only Christian fundementalists
> believe that The DaVinci Code is intended to be taken as literal
> history? I know that you have a hard time telling fantasy from reality
> (your bible is a perfect example) but come on!
>
the heroes enter a strange country, as in Narnia, or vsampires turn out to
be real, as in Buffy.
Spy fiction on the other hand tends to have a more subtle departure from
reality. In one James Bond film they built two cars, one with all the
special devices in it, and one for the chase scenes. The reason was that the
special car could only travel at about ten miles per hour. The car was
beyond reality, but only just.
A mainstream novel tends to try to get the main facts right, but to invent
trivial incidents for human interest. So Giles Coren's Winkler is an
imaginary person, but lives in a real London with Tube Trains and small
corner shops and offices with coffee machines. The observations made in the
novel are meant to be of real relevance to assimilated Jews.
The Da Vinci code falls between the conventions of the spy novel and the
mainstream novel, so it is not always easy to see what Dan Brown's attitude
to his material is. It is made harder buy the fact that the novel is badly
written, for instnace the hero gets held up at gunpoint on about six
occasions, and each time swaps smart backchat with his abductor. Real people
don't respond like that to having guns pointed at them.
However the characters take time out to give lengthy expositions of the Holy
Blood and Holy Grail theory, and the novel concludes with an act of worship
towards Mary Magdalene. There are also plenty of scenes where it is clear
that the author is sympathetic to the Magdalene cult. For instance the woman
in the sexual rite is middle aged and not particularly attractive, no sexist
exploitation here, one of the lecturers tells his students that during their
premarital sexual liasons, they should try to show reverence towards the
act, and the women nod knowingly - irresponsible men and wise feminist
women, again.
I think we can conclude that Dan Brown does actually believe in the
existence of his conspiracy, and supports it. However it is a tenuous
conclusion, he himself won't be drawn on the matter.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
Malcolm
>
> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
> ever existed.
>
Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>"johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>
>> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>> ever existed.
>>
>You really believe this, don't you?
>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
So show us the evidence.
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
>> Name one that you can certify saw George Washington sign the DofI rather
>> than his farm foreman.
> Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. Answer the
> question. What eyewitnesses are you referring to, duke?
Ah, puke again trying to pull its cheap evasive actions, eh? Everything,
literally everything, to deflect attention from the fact that it has no
proof for its bullshitty dogma... ;)
Jordan
myths. How many stories do you need to read about the same events
happening to different people over a period of a few thousand years to
realize that the most recent version is most likely as fake as all the
others?
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html
The more you know...
- Jordan
johac
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
> >
> > Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
> > ever existed.
> >
> You really believe this, don't you?
> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
Then maybe you would like to show us some evidence.
frank_...@hotmail.com
Constantine invited the bishop of Rome to attend the Council but he was
old and ill. He was represented by two presbyters.
The Roman bishop played no significant role in the production of the
Nicene Creed.
Frank.
wbarwell
> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>
>> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>> ever existed.
>>
> You really believe this, don't you?
> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
I suspect there was a Jesus, but he most certainly
not what the bible claimed.
********************************************
Mark 11:23-4
For verily I say this unto you, That
whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt
in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever
he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What
things soever ye desire, when ye pray,
believe ye receive them and ye shall have
them.
Matthew 18:19-20
Again I say unto you, that if two of you
shall agree on earth as touching anything
that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them of my father which is in heaven. For
where two or three are gathered in my name,
there I am in the midst of them.
Matthew 21:22
And all things,whatsoever ye shall ask
in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
John 14:12-14
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
do also; and greater works than these shall
he do; because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified
in the Son
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name,
I will do it.
***********************************************
--
So you want to fight the Master!
First you must fight my brother Chang!
Cheerful Charlie
Martin Edwards
> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>
>>Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>ever existed.
>>
>
> You really believe this, don't you?
> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
Let's try again: no historical evidence.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Julian Richards
<big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Malcolm wrote:
>> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>
>>>Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>>ever existed.
>>>
>>
>> You really believe this, don't you?
>> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>
>Let's try again: no historical evidence.
But I've seen the paperback in the supermarket. It must to true. Harry
Potter is.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
ADR
I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
ADR
Malcolm
>
>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>
> So show us the evidence.
>
which mention Jesus.
That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
parables? If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
attributed? If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
Jesus.
The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
There was such a person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including atheists,
accepts that.
VtSkier
And that's the rub. There is a very good chance that
the mention of Jesus in Josephus was added by a later
editor.
VtSkier
> "Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>>So show us the evidence.
Making statements is not showing evidence. You were asked
to show evidence that the "Jesus" character, as described
by the gospels, really existed. Saying that:
> There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
> which mention Jesus.
is not providing evidence.
Name one of those documents that can be verified by acceptable
means. The letters of Paul that are accepted (but not verified)
as his authorship notwithstanding.
And, just so you know, the burden of proof of your statements
is on YOU, not the unbeliver. The positive statement is yours.
You have the ability to prove your statement using logic and
evidence, while the unbeliver has a negative position and it
is impossible to logically prove a negative. It is also damned
difficult to provide evidence that a negative statement is true.
> That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
> exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
No, there isn't.
> Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
> parables?
Nobody. Even serious biblical scholars admit that they were
part of an oral tradition.
> If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
> attributed? If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
> inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
> Jesus.
For all intents and purposes? Then you admit that the "historical"
Jesus possibly did not exist as described in the gospels?
> The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
> again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
> gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
> There was such a person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including atheists,
> accepts that.
No they don't. Or rather, they admit that there were many people
at the time in question who had the name "Jesus" or one of its
variants, and there is no evidence that any one of them is the
Jesus described by the gospels.
Bonnie Bitch
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com>
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>> So show us the evidence.
>>
>There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
>which mention Jesus.
Name them, because last time I checked, the following historians from
that period made no mention of Jeebus:
Philo Judaeus
Apollonius of Tyana
Valerius Maximus
Marcus Manilius
Velleius Paterculus
Quintus Curtius Rufus
Pomponius Mela
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Petronius Arbiter
C. Musonius Rufus
Aulus Persius Flaccus
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
Hero(n) of Alexandria
Geminus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Cleomedes
Phaedrus
Dioscorides
Plutarch of Chaeronea
Justus of Tiberias
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus)
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio)
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus
Publius Papinius
Dio of Prusa
Silius Italicus
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Marcus Valerius Martialus
Hierocles of Alexandria
>That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
>exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
If such proof existed............
>Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
>parables?
It wasn't Jesus. Alleged Jesus wrote nothing.
>If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
>attributed?
Forgers rarely do a thorough job.
>If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
>inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
>Jesus.
Or Adonis, or Dionysus, or Hercules, or Mithra, or Zoroaster.....
>The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
>again on this ng.
No, just in your imagination.
Jesus was a myth. Your cult is based on a series of poorly-crafted
lies, cobbled together from the mythologies of other societies.
Unfortunately you and your christstain compatriots are so poorly
educated, and so gullible, that you assume that Jeebus is proven a
priori.
There was no such person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including
theists, accepts that. Among those we can count:
Prosper Alfaric
Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian
Karl Kautsky
Arthur Drews
John E. Remsburg
John Robertson
Alexander Hislop
Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga
Edward Carpenter
Rudolf Bultmann
James Frazer
P. L. Couchoud
Georg Brandes
Henri Delafosse
Joseph Wheless
L. Gordon Rylands
Edouard Dujardin
John J. Jackson
Alvin Boyd Kuhn
Herbert Cutner
Georges Las Vergnas
Georges Ory
Guy Fau
George Robert Stowe Mead
John Allegro
George Albert Wells
Max Rieser
Abelard Reuchlin
Hermann Detering
Gerd Lüdemann
Alvar Ellegard
D. Murdock
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
Harold Liedner
Robert Price
Hal Childs
Michael Hoffman
Burton Mack
Luigi Cascioli
Frank R. Zindler
DanielSan
> Malcolm wrote:
>
>> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>
>>> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>> ever existed.
>>>
>>
>> You really believe this, don't you?
>> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>
>
> Let's try again: no historical evidence.
>
It would be VERY easy to make us atheists look like complete and utter
fools. Simply provide contemporary historical evidence and we'll be
eating crow faster than you can say, "Moronsayswhat?"
nys...@cs.com
> While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
> course, prepare to prove your point. Failing that, prepare to hang your
> head in shame for being a fucking liar.
Hmm. Seems to me there has always been good evidence that "Jesus of
Nazareth" was an actual person who lived and died at around the time
detailed in the gospels. This has been agreed upon by a wide range of
scholars, including non-Christians. I find their arguments quite
convincing, especially since not all of the conclusions they draw are
ones that Christians would find convenient.
In addition to knowing that he "existed", scholars are reasonably
certain that
(1) That he did indeed come from the small town of Nazareth, and
(2) He was baptized by John the Baptist,
(3) That he had brothers,
(4) That he predicted the Apocalypse and the Kingdom of Heaven would
come within the lifetime of his listeners,
(5) That he was indeed crucified by the Romans at around 30 AD.
If you are curious as to why scholars are reasonably certain about
these things, there are ways of finding out.
Christopher A. Lee
>Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:
>> While we're at it (again), there's not a shred of evidence (except for pious
>> forgeries) for the existence of jebus. If you disagree, which you will of
>> course, prepare to prove your point. Failing that, prepare to hang your
>> head in shame for being a fucking liar.
>
>Hmm. Seems to me there has always been good evidence that "Jesus of
>Nazareth" was an actual person who lived and died at around the time
>detailed in the gospels. This has been agreed upon by a wide range of
>scholars, including non-Christians. I find their arguments quite
>convincing, especially since not all of the conclusions they draw are
>ones that Christians would find convenient.
Then you should have no problem providing cites for this alleged
evidence.
But don't give the standard list of debunked "sources" like Josephus.
>In addition to knowing that he "existed", scholars are reasonably
>certain that
They don't know.
>(1) That he did indeed come from the small town of Nazareth, and
Which disn't exist at the time.
>(2) He was baptized by John the Baptist,
>(3) That he had brothers,
>(4) That he predicted the Apocalypse and the Kingdom of Heaven would
>come within the lifetime of his listeners,
In the imagination of Christians.
>(5) That he was indeed crucified by the Romans at around 30 AD.
>
>If you are curious as to why scholars are reasonably certain about
>these things, there are ways of finding out.
Which you would have hiven if they actually were.
DanielSan
> "Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>>So show us the evidence.
>>
>
> There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
> which mention Jesus.
Provide them, then.
> That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
> exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
>
> Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
> parables?
Monks.
> If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
> attributed? If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
> inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
> Jesus.
Except that the story of Jesus is a rehash of older religions.
>
> The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
> again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
> gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
>
> There was such a person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including atheists,
> accepts that.
Then make us look like idiots and provide this "proof" that you have.
Please. I'm begging you.
nys...@cs.com
> And that's the rub. There is a very good chance that
> the mention of Jesus in Josephus was added by a later
> editor.
It is a bit more complex than that:
The references to Jesus in the slavonic editions of THE JEWISH WAR are
generally agreed to be non-genuine -- interpolated by later writers.
The First reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is disputed. Some claim
the passage was created wholesale by later writers. Others feel it is
mainly genuine, with additions or corrections inserted by later
writers. This passage is called the TESTIMONIUM FLAVIUM. An excellent
discussion of the question can be found here:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
The Second reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is generally agreed to be
genuine.
The only people arguing that every reference to Jesus in Josephus'
writings is a forgery seem to be the "Jesus Mythologists," who argue
that Jesus never existed.
nys...@cs.com
> There's also not a single shred of historical evidence for the
> Resurrection.
Not quite. There is indeed a "shred" of historical evidence; perhaps
even a bit more than a "shred." However, people of scientific bent
(and unwilling to make leaps of Faith) would tend to reject such
evidence as insufficient to support the conclusion, on the basis of the
scientific principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof."
Thus, many non-Christian scholars who are perfectly willing to accept,
mainly on the basis of the gospel accounts and the references in
Josephus, that Jesus was crucified and died under the authority of
Pontius Pilate, are nonethless unwilling to conclude that he rose from
the dead three days later. The proof required for the former is rather
less than the proof required for the latter.
Thus if you tell me, "My name is John Edwards, I am 38 years old, and I
have just returned from having been abducted by space aliens," I might
be inclined to believe the first two statements, while disbelieving the
last statement, although the "shred" of evidence (your word) is about
the same for each.
Christopher A. Lee
>VtSkier wrote:
>> And that's the rub. There is a very good chance that
>> the mention of Jesus in Josephus was added by a later
>> editor.
>
>It is a bit more complex than that:
>
>The references to Jesus in the slavonic editions of THE JEWISH WAR are
>generally agreed to be non-genuine -- interpolated by later writers.
>
>The First reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is disputed. Some claim
>the passage was created wholesale by later writers. Others feel it is
>mainly genuine, with additions or corrections inserted by later
>writers. This passage is called the TESTIMONIUM FLAVIUM. An excellent
>discussion of the question can be found here:
>
>http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
It is completely outof context, and as it stands was written later by
a Christian not a Jew.
The only apparent reason people think any of it is genuine, would
appear to be wishful thinking because there is nothing from which to
derive an original.
>The Second reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is generally agreed to be
>genuine.
No. It describes a different James, who died differently than the
James of the gospels.
>The only people arguing that every reference to Jesus in Josephus'
>writings is a forgery seem to be the "Jesus Mythologists," who argue
>that Jesus never existed.
Misprepresentration alert. There is no reason to assume he existed. Do
you understand the difference?
Christopher A. Lee
>raven1 wrote:
>> There's also not a single shred of historical evidence for the
>> Resurrection.
>
>Not quite. There is indeed a "shred" of historical evidence; perhaps
>even a bit more than a "shred." However, people of scientific bent
>(and unwilling to make leaps of Faith) would tend to reject such
>evidence as insufficient to support the conclusion, on the basis of the
>scientific principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>proof."
There is no evidence.
And faith is your worthless excuse.
>Thus, many non-Christian scholars who are perfectly willing to accept,
>mainly on the basis of the gospel accounts and the references in
>Josephus, that Jesus was crucified and died under the authority of
>Pontius Pilate, are nonethless unwilling to conclude that he rose from
>the dead three days later. The proof required for the former is rather
>less than the proof required for the latter.
Where is the evidence for this?
>Thus if you tell me, "My name is John Edwards, I am 38 years old, and I
>have just returned from having been abducted by space aliens," I might
>be inclined to believe the first two statements, while disbelieving the
>last statement, although the "shred" of evidence (your word) is about
>the same for each.
Argument by bad analogy.
VtSkier
> On 19 Mar 2006 17:10:44 -0800, nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
>
>>raven1 wrote:
>>
>>>There's also not a single shred of historical evidence for the
>>>Resurrection.
>>
>>Not quite. There is indeed a "shred" of historical evidence; perhaps
>>even a bit more than a "shred." However, people of scientific bent
>>(and unwilling to make leaps of Faith) would tend to reject such
>>evidence as insufficient to support the conclusion, on the basis of the
>>scientific principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>>proof."
>
> There is no evidence.
>
> And faith is your worthless excuse.
Faith is always the fall-back of those without facts.
>>Thus, many non-Christian scholars who are perfectly willing to accept,
>>mainly on the basis of the gospel accounts and the references in
>>Josephus, that Jesus was crucified and died under the authority of
>>Pontius Pilate, are nonethless unwilling to conclude that he rose from
>>the dead three days later. The proof required for the former is rather
>>less than the proof required for the latter.
>
> Where is the evidence for this?
While there is no proof that the gospel stories are factual,
and I have no proof to back up my belief, my experience in
talking to other people, the statement by nys...@cs.com above
is true. Non christians tend to accept the accounts in the
gospels which ring true and they reject the parts they cannot
fit into their world view.
>>Thus if you tell me, "My name is John Edwards, I am 38 years old, and I
>>have just returned from having been abducted by space aliens," I might
>>be inclined to believe the first two statements, while disbelieving the
>>last statement, although the "shred" of evidence (your word) is about
>>the same for each.
>
> Argument by bad analogy.
No, I think it's a perfectly good analogy.
It is easy to believe that someone's name is what he says it is.
It is easy to believe that someone in the past had lived.
It is easy to believe that a person is the age that he says he is.
It is easy to believe that a person was killed by another person.
It is hard to believe that someone has been abducted by aliens (at
least for most people).
It is hard to believe that someone who has been dead, returns
and is seen by and talked with people who are alive (at least
for me).
And Chris, I think nys...@cs.com is pretty much on our side.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Do they? I bet that will be news to non-Christians beause it is merely
the irrelevant scripture of somebody else's religion.
>>>Thus if you tell me, "My name is John Edwards, I am 38 years old, and I
>>>have just returned from having been abducted by space aliens," I might
>>>be inclined to believe the first two statements, while disbelieving the
>>>last statement, although the "shred" of evidence (your word) is about
>>>the same for each.
>>
>> Argument by bad analogy.
>
>No, I think it's a perfectly good analogy.
It's worthless. All it does is explain how the poster sees somethong.
Which we already know.
>It is easy to believe that someone's name is what he says it is.
>It is easy to believe that someone in the past had lived.
Please don't use the word "believe" when there are better words like
rationalise, conclude, observe etc.
Especially in the context of a theist's belief.
It obstructs discussion and explanation.
When the historical method is used there is no need to believe. This
gives conclusions drawn from corroborated evidence.
There is no evidence or coroboration for Jesus. It's a religious
presumption that only applies to members of that religion.
But that doesn't matter - as long as believers keep it to themselves
and don't tell falsehoods about non-believers
ADR
historicity of Jesus. James, his brother led the church, and the James
sect of Christianity (vs Paul version of it) was alive and kicking
during the Jewish revolt (not too alive after the war). So, there were
many in that movement that would have actually known Jesus. And
although the gospels were written well after these events, there were
proto-gospels (or mainly "the teachings of Jesus") in circulation
before that among people who would have met him. So, although there is
no specific archaelogical evidence of Jesus' existence, this is not
really unique in the ancient world. We know a lot of the personalities
of antiquity by references to them by later historians or
chronographers.
raven1
>raven1 wrote:
>> There's also not a single shred of historical evidence for the
>> Resurrection.
>
>Not quite. There is indeed a "shred" of historical evidence; perhaps
>even a bit more than a "shred."
Such as?
> However, people of scientific bent
>(and unwilling to make leaps of Faith) would tend to reject such
>evidence as insufficient to support the conclusion, on the basis of the
>scientific principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>proof."
>
>Thus, many non-Christian scholars who are perfectly willing to accept,
>mainly on the basis of the gospel accounts and the references in
>Josephus, that Jesus was crucified and died under the authority of
>Pontius Pilate, are nonethless unwilling to conclude that he rose from
>the dead three days later. The proof required for the former is rather
>less than the proof required for the latter.
>
>Thus if you tell me, "My name is John Edwards, I am 38 years old, and I
>have just returned from having been abducted by space aliens," I might
>be inclined to believe the first two statements, while disbelieving the
>last statement, although the "shred" of evidence (your word) is about
>the same for each.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
The PhAnToM
Malcolm wrote:
<snip>
> I think we can conclude that Dan Brown does actually believe in the
> existence of his conspiracy, and supports it. However it is a tenuous
> conclusion, he himself won't be drawn on the matter.
I saw him say that while he was researching the book, he _did_ become a
believer in the conspiracy (which I think was just reading Holy Blood,
Holy Grail, and then ripping it off). It was on one of the NA morning
shows a few years ago... Good Morning America, or Today.
sca...@bigpond.com
> On 19 Mar 2006 16:58:25 -0800, nys...@cs.com wrote:
> >The Second reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is generally agreed to be
> >genuine.
>
> No. It describes a different James, who died differently than the
> James of the gospels.
A 'different James'? Really? So, if I've got this correctly, there
were TWO guys called James, BOTH of whom had a brother called Jesus,
BOTH of whose brothers were called 'the Messiah', BOTH of whom were
arrested by the Temple priesthood and BOTH of whom were executed by
stoning?
Amazing.
Or, with a swift application of William of Occam's useful razor, we
can logically conclude that the James of *Antiquities* and the James
whose death was described in the later Christian sources were the same
guy.
He died 'differently'? Really? Josephus says he was stoned.
Hegesippus says he was thrown from the Temple and, because he was not
dead, was then stoned. Not much of a difference.
It's this kind of contorted contrivance that relegates the 'Jesus Myth'
nonsense to the fringes of kookery. And before you try to pretend I'm
some Christian apologist - I'm an atheist of 20 years standing. I'm
also well versed in the historical method, and anyone trying to pass
off an argument like 'Oh, that was some OTHER James' deserves ridicule.
You 'Jesus Myth' Kooks give intelligent, historically literate
atheists a bad name.
You don't believe he was the Messiah or God Incarnate? Great - neither
do I. But the pretzel logic required to convince yourself no Yeshuah
bar Yosef ever existed at all is beyond the vast majority of rational
non-Christian historians. Which is why the tiny 'Jesus Myth' bastion
is defended by laughably amateurish kooks like Freke, Gandy et al.
Jesus wasn't mentioned by Tactitus, Paterculus etc? Er, no he wasn't.
Why should they mention him? Did they mention any other Galilea
peasant lunatics babbling some esoteric nonsense about the end of the
world? No, they don't. So why would they mention this particular
nobody from nowhere?
There's only one historian of the time who'd bother mentioning such a
(to Romans) irrelevant non-entity - that's Josephus.
And he does. But when confronted by that we get this 'Oh, that was
some OTHER (identical) James' non-argument.
Totally laughable.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <486535F...@individual.net>
And a 99% chance that it was another of Josephus' fabrications.
(A polite word for 'outright fraudulent lie')
Michael Gray
<danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <441ded59$0$22963$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>
>Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>>> ever existed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really believe this, don't you?
>>> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>>
>> Let's try again: no historical evidence.
>>
>
>It would be VERY easy to make us atheists look like complete and utter
>fools. Simply provide contemporary historical evidence and we'll be
>eating crow faster than you can say, "Moronsayswhat?"
He cannot, for there is none.
All he has in his armoury is prevarication, avoidance behaviour, and
then lies.
Michael Gray
<danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <441dfd94$0$28294$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>
I'd be vitally interested too.
Many have promised it, none have delivered.
We'd all be very wealthy, and VERY famous, if he can deliver.
What are the odds?
IE J
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:351t12lhj8vr3i17i...@4ax.com...
Is it so hard to present any of the premisses needed for such an assumtion
to be valid at all?
In other words you are using a circle-proof where you are starting from a
non-proven assumption regarding Josephus. For all your rest bisarr
assumption that one needed to be proven true to be valid at all. Now one of
the things that IS proven is that Josephus by no means was what you in your
assumption re. him tries to make believe.
Why is it so hard for you who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ to accept that
he might have been a real historic person? That it's too big request for you
to accept Jesus Christ as God's son or even to make you realise that God
might exist, that's a totally different question.
If all you have to add is of same strawman quality as your other nonsense,
you better start by removing soc.history.ancient and soc.history.medieval
from your cross-posting. None of your posts under present subject-line
belongs in 'our' groups!
Inger E
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <HZvTf.49037$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net>
>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:351t12lhj8vr3i17i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:42:41 -0500, VtSkier <VtS...@nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <486535F...@individual.net>
>> >ADR wrote:
>> >> Martin,
>> >>
>> >> I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
>> >> mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
>> >>
>> >> ADR
>> >
>> >And that's the rub. There is a very good chance that
>> >the mention of Jesus in Josephus was added by a later
>> >editor.
>>
>> And a 99% chance that it was another of Josephus' fabrications.
>> (A polite word for 'outright fraudulent lie')
>
>Is it so hard to present any of the premisses needed for such an assumtion
>to be valid at all?
Is it so hard to look them up yourself?
The argument for Josephus fraud abounds, on the 'net, in libraries
both public and private.
And has done for over a century.
Is it too much to ask that I not be given the task of your theological
euialent of a kindergarten teacher?
Educate yourself, Inger.
Please.
>In other words you are using a circle-proof where you are starting from a
>non-proven assumption regarding Josephus. For all your rest bisarr
>assumption that one needed to be proven true to be valid at all. Now one of
>the things that IS proven is that Josephus by no means was what you in your
>assumption re. him tries to make believe.
I cannot understand your last three sentences.
I expect that English is not your primary language.
>Why is it so hard for you who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ to accept that
>he might have been a real historic person?
For *exactly* the same reason(s) that I find it hard to believe that
Sherlock Holmes was a real historic person.
That there is absolutely NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever
for the reality of your Jesus is a truly excellent basis for making
his non-existence the default assumption.
In fact, more valid an assumption than for Sherlock Holmes.
Repetition of a story over the ages does not make it any more real nor
true.
Nor does the seeming added weight of "authority" picked up along the
way.
It is evidence that counts. Evidence alone.
And the evidence for a historical Jesus is extremely tenuous.
Or perhaps you are hiding this miraculous *contemporary* evidence, and
have yet to show it the world?
>That it's too big request for you
>to accept Jesus Christ as God's son or even to make you realise that God
>might exist, that's a totally different question.
That is not even a question at all.
It is a semni-coherent statement.
>If all you have to add is of same strawman quality as your other nonsense,
>you better start by removing soc.history.ancient and soc.history.medieval
>from your cross-posting. None of your posts under present subject-line
>belongs in 'our' groups!
If the inclusion of "straw-men" is sufficient to eclude you from these
groups, then you have amply justified your strict and immediate
removal from them.
>Inger E
Hint: You may need to look up the meaning of "extant contemporary
evidence" before you reply.
And then the meaning of "straw man" as it relates to debate.
All this is after you refer to the scholarly works on Josephus and
fabrication.
Jos Flachs
<regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>
>> Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>> ever existed.
>>
>You really believe this, don't you?
>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
It has bene asked to you countless times, no doubt. And you politely
never even bothered to reply. So, I'll try it again:
Any proof of this jesus?
Jos Flachs
<regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>> So show us the evidence.
>>
>There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
>which mention Jesus.
Name 5 of them. Even the bible wasn't written by then.
>That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
>exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
Only if you could name some of those documents.
>Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
>parables?
Could jesus write? Kind of difficult for a non existing person...
>If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
>attributed?
Saul existed, but Peter? Not bloody likely.
>If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
>inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
>Jesus.
Or somebody else. Or several somebody elses. ;-)
>The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
>again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
>gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
It has been refuted, yes, but only by kooks.
>There was such a person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including atheists,
>accepts that.
Sorry. Atheists do NOT accept that.
Darrell Stec
> (1) That he did indeed come from the small town of Nazareth, and
Not only do scholars not have a concensus on whether Joshua came from
Nazareth (many do not accept Nazareth existed at the fabled time, and
that the word is incorrectly translated) some of the early Church
Fathers who lived in Palestine in the late 2nd century wondered where
that Nazareth might be. They also questioned Cana and Bethany among
others.
You have a poor grasp of both the writings of the Early Church fathers
and comtemporary scholars' higher criticism.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Alric Knebel
> "johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>
>>Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>ever existed.
>>
>
> You really believe this, don't you?
> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
I'm not one to dismiss the reality of Jesus, but he's right: there
really is no historical evidence of Jesus, because if he existed, he was
a marginal figure in Roman society -- and even Jewish society -- and
there are therefore no records of him outside of the gospels. Now,
there is a mention of him in the writings of the Jewish historian (I
can't remember his name at the time), but the entry is questioned, as
the syntax of the entry differs from the rest of the writers style.
The thing is, you can't say that the atheists are detached from reality
when your own beliefs have nothing to do with reality.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Alric Knebel
> "Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>>So show us the evidence.
>>
>
> There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
> which mention Jesus.
> That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
> exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
What fifty documents? Name at least twenty. I'd like to know what they
are. If you say, "The Gnostic Gospels," that doesn't count. There was
nothing written about Jesus until years later. That's what I've read.
> Secondly, elimating Jesus lands one in certain problems. Who wrote the
> parables? If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
> attributed? If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
> inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
> Jesus.
>
> The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
> again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
> gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
I can't believe you call them gullible.
VtSkier
Right, the irony meter just blew its indicator.
Martin Edwards
> "Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote
>
>>>You really believe this, don't you?
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>>So show us the evidence.
>>
>
> There are about fifty documents written within living memory of AD33, all of
> which mention Jesus.
> That's more evidence than for almost any other ancient figure, with the
> exception of a few political leaders like Julius Caesar.
>
> parables? If it was St Paul or St Peter, why aren't they properly
> attributed? If it was another person, then you end up with a central,
> inspirational, first century figure who is, to all intents and purposes ...
> Jesus.
>
> The "Jesus Myth" is a kook theory, which has been refuted time and time
> again on this ng. Unfortunately atheists are so poorly educated, and so
> gullible, that they assume that it is proven.
>
> accepts that.
Scweitzer didn't accept it, and he was a Christian.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Martin Edwards
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:27:44 +0000 (UTC), Martin Edwards
> <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>>"johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doesn't matter, since there is no historical evidence that your Jesus
>>>>ever existed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
>>
>
>
> Potter is.
>
>
> --
>
> Julian Richards
> medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
>
> www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
> Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
>
> THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Martin Edwards
> Martin,
>
> I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
> mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
>
> ADR
>
Martin Edwards
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>On 19 Mar 2006 16:58:25 -0800, nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
>
>>>The Second reference to Jesus in ANTIQUITIES is generally agreed to be
>>>genuine.
>>
>>No. It describes a different James, who died differently than the
>>James of the gospels.
>
>
> A 'different James'? Really? So, if I've got this correctly, there
> were TWO guys called James, BOTH of whom had a brother called Jesus,
> BOTH of whose brothers were called 'the Messiah', BOTH of whom were
> arrested by the Temple priesthood and BOTH of whom were executed by
> stoning?
>
He is executed just before we find out that James the brother of
Jesus, so far /unmentioned in Luke/ and only in passing in Mark, is
running the whole show.
kathryn
"The PhAnToM" <victorth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142834657.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
You know if you are going to plagarise a book - probably not best practice
to you know......mention that book in your own book
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:2p4o121sqnlj5cl58...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:23:41 GMT, 655321
>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong. He had live eye witnesses, and they reported.
>>>You mean like the witnesses who saw and reported on Babe the Blue Ox?
>>
>> Could be. I never heard of Babe the Blue Ox, but if there was a live eye
>> witness as there were for other historical events and the life and times
>> of
>> Jesus the Christ, then I guess so.
>
>Get your head out of your mythical gods ass.
That's where yours is found.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Michael Gray
<big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <dvmsch$9s6$5...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
>ADR wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
>> mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
>>
>> ADR
>>
>This has been shown repeatedly to be an interpolation.
The poor deluded Christian seems ignorant of this basic and ancient
fact.
He is of the brigade that relies on received authority, whilst railing
against assumed biblical ignorance in others.
Pathetic really.
He is really so way out of his depth here, I expect him to drown
without trace after a few waves of evidence and reality swamp over his
head.
I've seen it all before:
"50 documents", "100 documents", "Josephus", "Eusebius", and so-on.
It's all just regurgited tired old theological vomit, that was been
thoroughly debunked for around a century now.
Only the terminally ignorant and credulous could ever trot this crap
out in support of anything, save perhaps their gullibility.
Give it up Malcom, and others.
You are backing a sure-fire loser.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:30:42 +0000 (UTC), Martin Edwards
> <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <dvmsch$9s6$5...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
> >ADR wrote:
> >> Martin,
> >>
> >> I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
> >> mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
> >>
>
> The poor deluded Christian seems ignorant of this basic and ancient
> fact.
The poor atheist is invariably ignorant that this has not been a fact
for a century. Have a look at the Wikipedia article for Alice
Whealey's summary of current scholarly opinion -- genuine but corrupt.
> He is of the brigade that relies on received authority, whilst railing
> against assumed biblical ignorance in others.
An unfortunate comment, from someone ignorantly repeating hearsay as if
it were the word of god.
> I've seen it all before:
> "50 documents", "100 documents", "Josephus", "Eusebius", and so-on.
> It's all just regurgited tired old theological vomit, that was been
> thoroughly debunked for around a century now.
Those with a little more scepticism than yourself would be less than
impressed by the idea that debunking=false. Anyone can debunk
anything.
Christians appeal to facts; evidence; statements to be found in the
historical record. Atheists? Well, they spend their time trying to
invent ways to ignore evidence.
It's pretty clear which is scholarly, and which is not.
Christians set out their stall, state their views, argue for them.
Atheists on the other hand keep dead quiet about the values and ideas
for which they proselytise -- they all live by some subset of the
societal values popular when they were growing up, one finds -- and
confine themselves to throwing stones.
It's fairly clear that people who can't even state the position for
which they proselytise are unworthy of our consideration.
Surely none of this is profound? Evidence verses evasion; a clear
position versus silent insinuation? The message is clear.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
sca...@bigpond.com
I had another 'Jesus Myther' explaining (in usual garbled logic) that
Peter and Paul were fictional as well.
Were there any actual, real, live people in First Century Palestine, or
was the whole place deserted apart from fictional characters?
ADR
> to be valid at all?
> In other words you are using a circle-proof where you are starting from a
> non-proven assumption regarding Josephus. For all your rest bisarr
> assumption that one needed to be proven true to be valid at all. Now one of
> the things that IS proven is that Josephus by no means was what you in your
> assumption re. him tries to make believe.
>
> Why is it so hard for you who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ to accept that
> he might have been a real historic person? That it's too big request for you
> to accept Jesus Christ as God's son or even to make you realise that God
> might exist, that's a totally different question.
>
> If all you have to add is of same strawman quality as your other nonsense,
> you better start by removing soc.history.ancient and soc.history.medieval
> from your cross-posting. None of your posts under present subject-line
> belongs in 'our' groups!
Very much as the later scribes modified the Gospels to try to enhance
the divinity of Jesus, it is logical to assume that these scribes may
have added elements to Josephus to augment the story of Jesus..... but
I strongly doubt this. First of all, the mention in Josephus is hardly
the endorsment that Christians may have wished. In addition, it hardly
makes sense because the historicity of Jesus was not even an issue of
debate during the times that Josephus was being copied by a variety of
scribes. So, although later additions to Josephus to prove Jesus
existence are possible, they are highly unlikely to have occured.
Now, on the historicity of Jesus. I do not doubt it. The fact that we
lack contemporary accounts of his existence is hardly an argument. We
do not have contemporary accounts or other collaborative evidence for
many historical persons. These persons are mentioned by historians who
wrote much later but wrote on basis of contemporary accounts now lost.
Because the synoptic gospels are similar it is a good assumption that
they were based on accounts of Jesus' teachings circulating among those
who knew Jesus (mostly member of the Jerusalem proto-Christian church
led by James).
ADR
ADR
> >> You really believe this, don't you?
> >> Just shows how far from reality atheists get.
> >
> >
> > Let's try again: no historical evidence.
> >
>
> fools. Simply provide contemporary historical evidence and we'll be
> eating crow faster than you can say, "Moronsayswhat?"
This is too steep a requirement for verification for a person living
2000 years ago. The fact is that we know of the existence of tens of
thousands of historical persons from historians writing many decades
later on the basis of contemporary accounts now lost.
Anyway, the fact that Jesus may have existed or not is also not an
argument for or against the existence of a God and therefore of no real
interest to atheists. Actually, if one strips the later additions to
the Gospels, in the original accounts Jesus never claimed to be God,
just the Messiah (Son of Man).
ADR
The PhAnToM
Or make one of the main characters's names anagrammatical of two of the
authors of that book... both of whom are now suing Brown.
kathryn
Malcolm
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> There was such a person as Jesus. Every serious thinker, including
>> atheists, >> accepts that.
>
> Scweitzer didn't accept it, and he was a Christian.
>
Most of the Jesus Myth theories did the rounds in the nineteenth century,
where a few serious scholars of mythology accepted them for a time, because
of similarities between Jesus and other figures of classical myth. However
it was quickly that Jesus, unlike Bacchus or Mithras or Thor, was firmly
located in an historical context, and was a real person. So the theory went
the way of other failed ideas.
Then it was revived in the twenties to thirties, and is enjoying another
spurt of popularity now. However the difference is that now the academics
aren't joining it. The only recent Jesus Myther with any real qualifications
was Grey, who was a professor of German literature. He retracted his
position after virtually every univeristy person with an interst in the
matter objected.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
Malcolm
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
> That there is absolutely NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever
> for the reality of your Jesus is a truly excellent basis for making
> his non-existence the default assumption.
>
The few people who were children in Jerusalem in AD33 would have died around
120AD.
Taking 120AD as our cut-off, there are about 50 documents with first dates -
the eariest date scholars think plausible - before this. Iasion has kindly
reposted their names.
Now you may say that iasion has refuted every work on my list.
The fact is that anyone can easily obtain such a list, and so professional
kooks have done so. So of course they then have to think up various reasons
why all the bits of evidence don't count. Sometimes they are rather
ingenious in doing this, sometimes less so. I've exposed a few of Iasion's
mistakes.
Then people like you start claiming that there is no evidence.
Malcolm
> Michael Gray wrote:
>>Martin Edwards wrote:
>
> Christians appeal to facts; evidence; statements to be found in the
> historical record. Atheists? Well, they spend their time trying to
> invent ways to ignore evidence.
>
> It's pretty clear which is scholarly, and which is not.
>
Most of the atheists you meet on Usenet fall for the Jesus Myth nonsense.
The reason is obvious - superficially the Jesus Mythers give the impression
of considerable scholarship, because they know the names of a few documents
that the average newbie hasn't heard of. They also think of themselves as an
intellectual elite.
So the newbie atheist naturally falls in with the pack, reads a few books by
Doherty or suchlike, and becomes himself a Jesus Myther.
However this implies that there are no scholarly atheists. Of course that
isn't true - for obvious reasons, atheists tend not to be attracted to the
field of biblical scholarship, but there is no shortage of academics in arts
faculties who have the basic competence to read ancient texts, and would
describe themselves as atheists.
Michael Gray
<regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <dvq1rv$q0j$3...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
>> That there is absolutely NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever
>> for the reality of your Jesus is a truly excellent basis for making
>> his non-existence the default assumption.
>>
>The few people who were children in Jerusalem in AD33 would have died around
>120AD.
>Taking 120AD as our cut-off, there are about 50 documents with first dates -
>the eariest date scholars think plausible - before this. Iasion has kindly
>reposted their names.
>
>Now you may say that iasion has refuted every work on my list.
>
>The fact is that anyone can easily obtain such a list, and so professional
>kooks have done so. So of course they then have to think up various reasons
>why all the bits of evidence don't count. Sometimes they are rather
>ingenious in doing this, sometimes less so. I've exposed a few of Iasion's
>mistakes.
>
>Then people like you start claiming that there is no evidence.
So, you think that a document written after 120AD is "contempory
evidence"?
That rather demolishes your case in one fell swoop, if you can be so
lax with definitions as to allow that.
I have seen lists, nad lists of lists, and all of them are flawed in
one way or another.
The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
It is clearly a fragment of what we have come to call the Gospel of
St. John.
If you mean an earlier letter that mentions "Cristians", then you are
barking up the wrong tree.
I repeat:
There is absolutely NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever
for the reality of your Jesus.
Show me your single best counter-argument to this assertion.
(Or shut up, and go away.)
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
mountain man
> The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
> Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
> It is clearly a fragment of what we have come to call the Gospel of
> St. John.
I would object to the dating of between 125 and 150 based on
the method and process used for the dating of these papyri ms and
fragments, paleography, or handwriting analysis, much of which
was performed in the early part of the 20th century.
"Send it up to Fred in the Paleographic building for the date".
To my knowledge there has been no fragment or ms pertaining
to be of the NT that has undergone carbon-dating.
I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
this prediction proved wrong.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
Michael Gray
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
- Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
>> Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
>> It is clearly a fragment of what we have come to call the Gospel of
>> St. John.
>
>
>I would object to the dating of between 125 and 150 based on
>the method and process used for the dating of these papyri ms and
>fragments, paleography, or handwriting analysis, much of which
>was performed in the early part of the 20th century.
That is all I have to "go on"...
And all that anyone has: you, me, or any other biblical scholar.
It's the best we can do at the moment, while the documents are not
made available for modern scientific analysis.
>"Send it up to Fred in the Paleographic building for the date".
If I could demand that, I would.
The ink, the papyrus, the glue, the repairs, the fingerprints.
Everything.
>To my knowledge there has been no fragment or ms pertaining
>to be of the NT that has undergone carbon-dating.
I do believe that would be the case.
(In the non-trivial sense)
I think I would have heard about it by now, had it been ALLOWED.
(Strange that it hasn't been permitted, such a momentus finding as it
might be, either way...)
>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>this prediction proved wrong.
I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
(Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
Peter Alaca
How about carbon dating all those remaining pieces of the true cross?
--
p.a.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <442113f0$0$11124$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>
What, the whole forest full?
If one gethered all the pieces of the true cross, there would be
enough to sink a battleship.
Perhaps that is what happened to Moses' "Ark"? ;)
Michael Hearne
> In <1142567117.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
> Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>>
>>
>>
>>Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>>
>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>
>
> There's not a single shred of historical evidince Jesus existed.
>
However, in order to make absolutely sure, Constantine was baptized on
the eve of his death.
We have plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, I believe that your point
is to dispute whether or not he was divine. To the Christians, there is
no "was", he is, because he never died (that is, he rose again).
Please remember also that several of the Apostles were the worst sort of
sinners before they became converted, so I think that the more vehement
that you become, the more likely that you are to become a Christian in
the end.
Please see:
A CHRISTIAN ON TRIAL <http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004796.htm>
"An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces
the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The
trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and
democratic government."
.
Do you realize that if you voiced your opinion over there, that you
would simply be shot? I doubt it. I've known plenty like you, having
been brought up as a Unitarian, and only later becoming Catholic in an
awful place across the sea.
You can bet that our President is very unpopular right now, for
defending those sorts of governments, and their policies. I will be very
unpopular with a few, after posting this, however, I still don't have to
worry about being shot for my beliefs.
I really think that we need to reconsider just who exactly our "Allies"
are. Our soldiers in Iraq can be arrested for wearing a crucifix, and
yet we have to kiss those folks asses over here.
Personally, I am more than a little tired of "them", but then, I'm not
running anything.
Michael Hearne
Michael Hearne
> The Jesus myth is an almost verbatim retelling of earlier Messianic
> myths. How many stories do you need to read about the same events
> happening to different people over a period of a few thousand years to
> realize that the most recent version is most likely as fake as all the
> others?
>
> http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html
>
> The more you know...
>
> - Jordan
>
What I know is that our Jewish "friends" despise us almost as much as
our Arab "friends". They both certainly despise Jesus.
I also know that they are both descended from Isaac, and no matter what
fine words that anyone has to say, their little squabble has been going
on for several thousands of years.
They are blood kin. They have a blood feud. What on Earth does that have
to do with us? I really just don't remember the election, and I've been
voting since 1970.
It's time to put an end to this nonsense, and send everyone home. The
game's over.
Michael Hearne
Peter Alaca
>"Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> "mountain man" wrote:
>>>> I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>> NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>> this prediction proved wrong.
>>> I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
>>> (Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
>> How about carbon dating all those remaining pieces of the true cross?
> What, the whole forest full?
> If one gethered all the pieces of the true cross, there would be
> enough to sink a battleship.
> Perhaps that is what happened to Moses' "Ark"? ;)
There you have a chronology problem.
And all that foreskins! Enough sail for all the
remaining tallships in the world.
--
p.a.
rick++
An alternative method counts the different atoms before fission
using a mass spectrometer. It requires much less matetial,
but is much more expensive.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > Michael Gray wrote:
> >>Martin Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Christians appeal to facts; evidence; statements to be found in the
> > historical record. Atheists? Well, they spend their time trying to
> > invent ways to ignore evidence.
> >
> > It's pretty clear which is scholarly, and which is not.
> >
> I don't like this use of the term "atheist".
After a while one gets tired of qualifying this as 'atheists online --
of course there are also intelligent atheists.'
> Most of the atheists you meet on Usenet fall for the Jesus Myth nonsense.
> The reason is obvious - superficially the Jesus Mythers give the impression
> of considerable scholarship, because they know the names of a few documents
> that the average newbie hasn't heard of. They also think of themselves as an
> intellectual elite.
> So the newbie atheist naturally falls in with the pack, reads a few books by
> Doherty or suchlike, and becomes himself a Jesus Myther.
I suspect that you are correct.
> However this implies that there are no scholarly atheists. Of course that
> isn't true - for obvious reasons, atheists tend not to be attracted to the
> field of biblical scholarship, but there is no shortage of academics in arts
> faculties who have the basic competence to read ancient texts, and would
> describe themselves as atheists.
I agree that there must be some.
George Peatty
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>this prediction proved wrong.
Whether your claim is right is irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty
assumption, namely, that carbon dating is the most reliable way of
determining the age of ancient fragments of Scripture:
"Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used in
determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the
handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon
dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can
confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's." {3}
Mark K. Bilbo
<bqbUf.8862$k75...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> In <1142567117.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
>> Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
>>>
>>>Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
>>>
>>>There is not a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion.
>>
>> There's not a single shred of historical evidince Jesus existed.
>>
> However, in order to make absolutely sure, Constantine was baptized on the
> eve of his death.
So what?
> We have plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, I believe that your point
> is to dispute whether or not he was divine. To the Christians, there is no
> "was", he is, because he never died (that is, he rose again).
Nope. My point is there's no evidence he existed.
> Please remember also that several of the Apostles were the worst sort of
> sinners before they became converted,
Or so the press releases say.
> so I think that the more vehement
> that you become, the more likely that you are to become a Christian in the
> end.
Don't hold your breath. I was a Christian for more than two decades. I see
no reason to return.
> Please see:
> A CHRISTIAN ON TRIAL <http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004796.htm>
Michelle Maglalang is a venom filled, self-hating Asian who is prone to
endorsing evil. So if she supports Christianity, that counts against the
religion far as I'm concerned.
> "An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces
> the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The
> trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic
> government."
> .
> Do you realize that if you voiced your opinion over there, that you would
> simply be shot? I doubt it. I've known plenty like you, having been
> brought up as a Unitarian, and only later becoming Catholic in an awful
> place across the sea.
Do you realize how much of a failure of the neocon policies the above
represents?
> You can bet that our President is very unpopular right now, for defending
> those sorts of governments, and their policies. I will be very unpopular
> with a few, after posting this, however, I still don't have to worry about
> being shot for my beliefs.
Is that the "not as bad a Hitler" defense?
> I really think that we need to reconsider just who exactly our "Allies"
> are. Our soldiers in Iraq can be arrested for wearing a crucifix, and yet
> we have to kiss those folks asses over here.
Kiss whose ass and for why? What *are you on about?
> Personally, I am more than a little tired of "them", but then, I'm not
> running anything.
If you are a citizen of a democracy, you are running things. You are
responsible for the actions of your government.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Larry Swain
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
> <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
> - Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
>>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
>>>Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
Well, almost. It is dated to between 100AD and 150AD, and more probably
falling in the second half of that range than the first.
>>>It is clearly a fragment of what we have come to call the Gospel of
>>>St. John.
>>
>>
>>I would object to the dating of between 125 and 150 based on
>>the method and process used for the dating of these papyri ms and
>>fragments, paleography, or handwriting analysis, much of which
>>was performed in the early part of the 20th century.
>
>
> That is all I have to "go on"...
> And all that anyone has: you, me, or any other biblical scholar.
> It's the best we can do at the moment, while the documents are not
> made available for modern scientific analysis.
>
I'd be interested in those insisting on carbon dating demonstrating that
the palaeographic dating is wrong.
>>"Send it up to Fred in the Paleographic building for the date".
>
>
> If I could demand that, I would.
> The ink, the papyrus, the glue, the repairs, the fingerprints.
> Everything.
First, the date of the papyrus is determined not just by palaeography,
but also with reference to the materials with which it was found and the
site in which it was found.
>
>>To my knowledge there has been no fragment or ms pertaining
>>to be of the NT that has undergone carbon-dating.
>
>
> I do believe that would be the case.
> (In the non-trivial sense)
It would be, but I don't find that problematic. The whole system could
be wrong of course, but NT materials are dated in part by comparison
with other written material surviving from the period--so the entire
scholarly community working on such things could be dating everything
from Homeric scraps to Roman govt. correspondance incorrectly, but I'd
like to see some demonstration of that rather than merely dismissing it
because there has been little carbon dating.
> I think I would have heard about it by now, had it been ALLOWED.
> (Strange that it hasn't been permitted, such a momentus finding as it
> might be, either way...)
>
Why is it needed? Is there some indication that the system of dating
papyri is wrong? Such testing would destroy some of the scraps that one
wants tested.
>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>this prediction proved wrong.
>
>
> I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
> (Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
Sure, but again, it is destroying what is being tested. In any case,
since we have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century authors citing the NT
texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac etc, having the papyri dated to the fourth
century doesn't really prove anything other than the papyri are later
than supposed. Doubtful, but there ya go.
Malcolm
> Martin Edwards
>>ADR wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
>>> mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
>>>
>>> ADR
>>>
>>This has been shown repeatedly to be an interpolation.
>
> The poor deluded Christian seems ignorant of this basic and ancient
> fact.
>
opinion think that the Testimonium was embellished by a Chrisitian scribe,
but that there was and original reference. There is, in any case, a second
passing reference to Jesus in Josephus. The majority opinion is bolstered by
the fact that Arabic texts of Josephus have the passage, minus the suggested
embellishments.
This is typical Jesus Myther argument. Any possibility, which seems
favourable to them, automatically acquires the status of established fact.
>
> He is of the brigade that relies on received authority, whilst railing
> against assumed biblical ignorance in others.
>
The first quuestion is, is there a substantial body of qualified academic
opinion which states that Jesus may not have existed?
The answer is tnhat there is not.
However you are right to point out that this is an argument from authority.
So maybe the crackpots are right after all?
The problem is that even a non-specialist such as myself can see the
manifest holes in their argument. Such as the paragraph above. A minority
opinion becomes a "basic and ancient fact".
If someone's ideas are rejected by all specialists, and even a non-expert
can tell that they are arguing weakly, it is pretty safe to reject those
ideas.
>
> Pathetic really.
> He is really so way out of his depth here, I expect him to drown
> without trace after a few waves of evidence and reality swamp over his
> head.
>
The problem is that it requires a certain level of intelligence and
intellectual honesty to realise that you have been comprehensively refuted.
>
> I've seen it all before:
> "50 documents", "100 documents", "Josephus", "Eusebius", and so-on.
> It's all just regurgited tired old theological vomit, that was been
> thoroughly debunked for around a century now.
> Only the terminally ignorant and credulous could ever trot this crap
> out in support of anything, save perhaps their gullibility.
>
There is a limited amount of evidence, and a limited number of arguments one
can bring to bear Jesus Myther positions. The 50 documents, more than for
almost any other person in ancient history, are an obvious and important
part of that evidence.
I am sorry if posts get repetitive.
>
> Give it up Malcom, and others.
> You are backing a sure-fire loser.
>
Unless atheists start dropping the Jesus Myth nonsense they will have
exactly as much intellectual credibility as young earth creationists.
Different subject matter, but a very similar phenomenon. I argue against
both, and it is a very similar experience.
mountain man
news:c3s2221jnvqh1jfdk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
> <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>
>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>this prediction proved wrong.
>
> Whether your claim is right is irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty
> assumption, namely, that carbon dating is the most reliable way of
> determining the age of ancient fragments of Scripture:
It is more sure than paleography.
> "Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used
> in
> determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the
> handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon
> dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can
> confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's."
> {3}
You forgot to mention how paleography identifies forged handwriting.
The answer is simply that it cannot. There are so many accepted
forgeries related to the NT that paleographic analysis cannot be used
as an authoritative measure *by itself* IMO.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
mountain man
news:1I-dnZCSkNe...@rcn.net...
> Michael Gray wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
>> <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>> - Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
...[trimmed]...
>>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>this prediction proved wrong.
>>
>>
>> I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
>> (Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
>
> Sure, but again, it is destroying what is being tested. In any case,
> since we have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century authors citing the NT
> texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac etc, having the papyri dated to the fourth
> century doesn't really prove anything other than the papyri are later than
> supposed. Doubtful, but there ya go.
It is consistent with the postulate that christianity
is an entirely a Constantinian phenomemom that
has been disguised by the massive forgeries and
interpolations of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Thus we have the theory of history as outlined by
Eusebius, and an alternative history of christianity
which commenced only in the time of Eusebius,
and in which the Arian controversy is viewed as
the reaction of the empire to the implementation
of christianity by Constantine, and against which
Constantine moved immediately upon becoming
supreme ruler of the empire, by summoning the
Council of Nicaea, where he got his way.
Which theory of history has more historical integrity,
and how does one gather the necessary support to
establish criteria in a formalised manner? I'd be
interested in any ideas on this last issue.
Best wishes,
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1143038746....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
I could get the money for whatever it costs.
Price is not the issue here.
And there are many less destructive dating techniques these days.
So, no barriers, save getting access to the documents.
--
Michael Gray
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
- Refer: <c3s2221jnvqh1jfdk...@4ax.com>
That does not state WHY carbon dating is seldom used, and so YOUR
first assumption is faulty.
Nor does it even begin to suggest the relative reliability of C14
dating, as compared to other methods.
Fault #2
Honestly, you really must do better next time.
0/10 (Fail)
--
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:43:49 -0500, George Peatty
> <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
> - Refer: <c3s2221jnvqh1jfdk...@4ax.com>
> >On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
> ><hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
> >
> >>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
> >>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
> >>this prediction proved wrong.
> >
> >Whether your claim is right is irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty
> >assumption, namely, that carbon dating is the most reliable way of
> >determining the age of ancient fragments of Scripture:
> >
> >"Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used in
> >determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the
> >handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon
> >dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can
> >confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's." {3}
>
It is curious to hear atheists complaining that scholars do not use
this technique, and complaining that people do not explain to them WHY
the rest of us leave them in their ignorance.
No-one is under any obligation to prove the obvious to the obtuse.
Michael Gray
<thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1I-dnZCSkNe...@rcn.net>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
>> <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>> - Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>>
>>>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
>>>>Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
>
>Well, almost. It is dated to between 100AD and 150AD, and more probably
>falling in the second half of that range than the first.
What do you mean "almost"?
Your description is an exact paraphrase of my date range!
Eh?
What has that got to with my agreement that "no fragment or ms
pertaining to be of the NT that has undergone carbon-dating."
I'm really not following you, old chap.
>> I think I would have heard about it by now, had it been ALLOWED.
>> (Strange that it hasn't been permitted, such a momentus finding as it
>> might be, either way...)
>>
>
>Why is it needed? Is there some indication that the system of dating
>papyri is wrong? Such testing would destroy some of the scraps that one
>wants tested.
>
>
>>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>this prediction proved wrong.
>>
>>
>> I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
>> (Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
>
>Sure, but again, it is destroying what is being tested. In any case,
>since we have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century authors citing the NT
>texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac etc, having the papyri dated to the fourth
>century doesn't really prove anything other than the papyri are later
>than supposed. Doubtful, but there ya go.
If you know of ANY 1st century authors who cite the NT texts, in any
language, you should inform the entire world, as you are holding on to
some as yet undiscovered gem!
And you say there are "multiple" authors who have done this?
Hold on to those documents, they are priceless, and no-one else has
any idea that you have them!
--
Larry Swain
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:28:24 -0600, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <1I-dnZCSkNe...@rcn.net>
>
>>Michael Gray wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
>>><hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>>>
>>>>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The earliest known bit of existing evidence for Jesus is in the John
>>>>>Rylands Library, and I date it to between 125AD and 150AD.
>>
>>Well, almost. It is dated to between 100AD and 150AD, and more probably
>>falling in the second half of that range than the first.
>
>
> What do you mean "almost"?
> Your description is an exact paraphrase of my date range!
No, my description is a more precise representation of the accepted
dating and how a palaeographer would state it.
Shouldn't be too difficult. You stated, "I do believe...", I agreed and
said "It would be..." meaning that it would be the case. This statement
is followed by a comma and a conjunction stating that I do not find that
situation problematic as apparently your correspondant does, and to a
lesser degree you see to. I then explain why that is not a problematic
situation. That shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
>
>>>I think I would have heard about it by now, had it been ALLOWED.
>>>(Strange that it hasn't been permitted, such a momentus finding as it
>>>might be, either way...)
>>>
>>
>>Why is it needed? Is there some indication that the system of dating
>>papyri is wrong? Such testing would destroy some of the scraps that one
>>wants tested.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>>this prediction proved wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
>>>(Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
>>
>>Sure, but again, it is destroying what is being tested. In any case,
>>since we have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century authors citing the NT
>>texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac etc, having the papyri dated to the fourth
>>century doesn't really prove anything other than the papyri are later
>>than supposed. Doubtful, but there ya go.
>
>
> If you know of ANY 1st century authors who cite the NT texts, in any
> language, you should inform the entire world, as you are holding on to
> some as yet undiscovered gem!
> And you say there are "multiple" authors who have done this?
Easily done. Matthew and Luke both know and use Mark, this is known as
the Synoptic problem. All three texts are first century. Colossians
knows Ephesians, as may I Peter. II Peter uses Jude. II Peter also
refers to Paul's letters. Ulrich Luz has argued that the authors of I
Peter and James know Matthew. The typical date ranges for all these
documents are first century.
Moving outside the NT, the Didache is currently dated to the end of the
first century, and its terminus a quo is determined by the its apparent
citations of Matthew and Luke; I Clement refers to Paul's letters to
Galatians and Corinthians. Papias, writing in the second century, but
quoting a first century person, refers to Matthew and Mark as gospel
writings specifically. And that doesn't even get us into the early
second century material, such as Basilides commentary on John c. 125.
By the way, this is no secret, but just a matter of course in tracing
the development of nascent Christianity.
Larry Swain
> "George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:c3s2221jnvqh1jfdk...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
>><hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>this prediction proved wrong.
>>
>>Whether your claim is right is irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty
>>assumption, namely, that carbon dating is the most reliable way of
>>determining the age of ancient fragments of Scripture:
>
>
> It is more sure than paleography.
NOt really. All it can date, even if it can do so accurately to within
a few years, is the date of the papyrus, not the date of the writing on
the papyrus. One could test the ink of course and that would involve a
chemical analysis to ensure that no aging ingredients were put in the
mixture to make it seem older. Palaeography tells us what period the
actual writing is.
>
>
>>"Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used
>>in
>>determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the
>>handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon
>>dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can
>>confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's."
>>{3}
>
>
>
> You forgot to mention how paleography identifies forged handwriting.
> The answer is simply that it cannot.
Use a hammer to change a lightbulb do you? Ok, that might be extreme.
But the point is is that Palaeography is not designed to detect
forgeries: that is not its purpose. It can be a tool used to detect
forgeries, and often has been.
There are so many accepted
> forgeries related to the NT that paleographic analysis cannot be used
> as an authoritative measure *by itself* IMO.
SUre. But as in the case of the early bit of John, not only would one
have to establish that the fragment is a forgery, but then explain how
it came to be in a garbage dump in Egypt at a level in the dig
consistent with the early second century CE, and explain how other
artifacts found at the same place are dated incorrectly.
Martin Edwards
The Didache is an awkward one to bring up. It shows *no* interest in
Jesus's death or what form it took. Its communal meal is a celebration
of his life and anyone is allowed to "testify". The sacrificed god-man
has yet to appear.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Martin Edwards
who, while they *may* be obtuse, have shown an interest in the discourse
purely by taking part. Like Enoch Powell, you use high register
language to make nonsense seem profound.
Martin Edwards
> "Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
>
>>Martin Edwards
>>
>>>ADR wrote:
>>>
>>>>Martin,
>>>>
>>>>I think that it would be correct to say that Jesus is certainly
>>>>mentioned in Josephus, although Josephus is not a contemporary
>>>>
>>>>ADR
>>>>
>>>
>>>This has been shown repeatedly to be an interpolation.
>>
>>The poor deluded Christian seems ignorant of this basic and ancient
>>fact.
>>
>
> It is not a fact. It is a minority opinion. Most people with a qualified
> opinion think that the Testimonium was embellished by a Chrisitian scribe,
> but that there was and original reference. There is, in any case, a second
> passing reference to Jesus in Josephus. The majority opinion is bolstered by
> the fact that Arabic texts of Josephus have the passage, minus the suggested
> embellishments.
>
> This is typical Jesus Myther argument. Any possibility, which seems
> favourable to them, automatically acquires the status of established fact.
>
one which precedes it. For "qualified" read "concensus".
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:1I-dnZCSkNe...@rcn.net...
>
>>Michael Gray wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:33:16 GMT, "mountain man"
>>><hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <0A3Uf.13462$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
>
> ...[trimmed]...
>
>
>
>>>>I predict that there will not be any carbon dated fragment of the
>>>>NT found earlier than the fourth century. I am happy to have
>>>>this prediction proved wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would merely be satisfied to get a confirmed carbon 14 date-range!
>>>(Irrespective of what it turned out to be.)
>>
>>Sure, but again, it is destroying what is being tested. In any case,
>>since we have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century authors citing the NT
>>texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac etc, having the papyri dated to the fourth
>>century doesn't really prove anything other than the papyri are later than
>>supposed. Doubtful, but there ya go.
>
>
>
> It is consistent with the postulate that christianity
> is an entirely a Constantinian phenomemom that
> has been disguised by the massive forgeries and
> interpolations of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Not really. In order to pull this off, ol' Eusebius and Constantine
would have had to convince nearly half the empire that the religion they
were observing was really hundreds of years old rather than something
they just invented; would have had in fact to create in Latin, Greek,
and Syriac not only all the Christian documents (in addition to the NT,
the Clementine material, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian,
Irenaeus, Hippolytus and others), but also all the "heretical" groups
and all their writings, and placed these cleverly in different voices,
in different scripts, different writing styles, in different places
around the empire, and been smart enough to not only do the literary
bit, but also to bury papyri in Egypt at the appropriate levels so that
later scholars finding bits of Christian papyri among second and third
century materials and matching the palaeography to other non-Christian
writings of those periods would discover that the Christian papyri match
the scripts of those earlier periods rather than the later period in
which Eusebius lived. In short, an army of scribes would need to be
dedicated to this, and would have had to know palaeography, archaeology,
and have some idea of modern historiographical methods, much less the
huge propaganda machine, all dedicated to this sole enterprise. And yet
somehow we're to believe that this is what happened, and not only so,
but that such a huge enterprise was successfully covered up and kept no
records of itself and no one caught on, and that somehow nearly half the
population of the empire adhered to this new religion and got all upset
about what some guy in Egypt said? Now that's as much special pleading
as the Christian fundies who insist that God (or the Devil depending on
your brand) seeded the fossil record to fool the unwary and so maintain
their belief in a literal six day creation 6000 years ago.