Josephus on Jesus
Rev Gadfly
>
> Consider...
>
> In the same century of Jesus, the Jewish scholar Josephus is reported to
> have said the following about Jesus, though he was not a believer. It
> is noted that, despite some disputes that Josephus wouldn't have said it
> (by Jews that dislike Christianity), there is no evidence to the
> contrary. In fact, every one of the ancient copies of this text
> includes the following words of Josephus in his Antiquities.
>
> "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
> call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such
> men as receive the truth with pleasure. he drew over to him both many
> of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate,
> at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
> the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he
> appeared to them alive againt the third day, a the divine prophets had
> fortold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;
> and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this
> day." Antiq. 18:3:3
>
> This combined with copies of many New Testament books at the Essenes
> location (inhabited till the end of the first century) show the New
> Testament to be Accurate to History and dated of the time period.
>
> If you choose not to believe, that is your choice, but the text holds
> and the history is factual.
>
> So, then, you must ask yourself. Is your opposition to the New
> Testament and Jesus's history based in authenticity or personal
> conviction? Is there a level that can be reached to it's truthfulness
> that would convince you, or are you set against finding out the truth?
> Isn't your objections founded in the knowledge that if Jesus was found
> to be true, you'd have to deal with the reality of having a Lord over
> you, which you will not allow (man or God)?
>
> Do not let your past or present pride stop you from a glorious future.
> Accept Him today.
RevG
It is an interpolation, totally out of context for that chapter it
exists in. Prior to Eusebius no church father mentioned the passage,
Origen even quoted from the same book of antiquities and never mentioned
its existence -- yet this is the type of evidence Origen needed to
refute Celsus.
Even the gospels are forgeries, Pilate is referred to an a procurator;
such an office had no military or judicial role, and worst, it did not
come into existence prior to the time of Trajan who started his reign in
98CE and created it.
There never was a Jesus, he is a myth.
peace
Rev Peter
--
"As to the people called Christians, they have no evidence that their
religion is true. There is no more proof that the Bible is the Word
of God, than the Koran of Mohammed is the Word of God." --
The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p. 294
Welcome to Deist information-discussion group
http://groups.msn.com/DEISMbeliefinGodwithoutthebaggage
For a collection of Rev Gadfly's essays, go to
http://ca.msnusers.com/REVGADFLYREADINGROOM
Roger Pearse
> K C wrote:
[TF]
>
> RevG
> It is an interpolation, totally out of context for that chapter it
> exists in. Prior to Eusebius no church father mentioned the passage,
> Origen even quoted from the same book of antiquities and never mentioned
> its existence -- yet this is the type of evidence Origen needed to
> refute Celsus.
>
> Even the gospels are forgeries, Pilate is referred to an a procurator;
> such an office had no military or judicial role, and worst, it did not
> come into existence prior to the time of Trajan who started his reign in
> 98CE and created it.
>
> There never was a Jesus, he is a myth.
All of this has been discussed many times. The statements about the
TF do not reflect the scholarship of today but the needs of
anti-Christian polemic.
The statement about procurators is pure ignorance. The term always
existed, indicating an imperial bailiff, and its use came into general
vogue in the time of Claudius as one of his reforms.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Rev Gadfly
>
> Rev Gadfly <RevG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3DB05B6A...@hotmail.com>...
> > K C wrote:
> [TF]
> >
> > RevG
> > It is an interpolation, totally out of context for that chapter it
> > exists in. Prior to Eusebius no church father mentioned the passage,
> > Origen even quoted from the same book of antiquities and never mentioned
> > its existence -- yet this is the type of evidence Origen needed to
> > refute Celsus.
> >
> > Even the gospels are forgeries, Pilate is referred to an a procurator;
> > such an office had no military or judicial role, and worst, it did not
> > come into existence prior to the time of Trajan who started his reign in
> > 98CE and created it.
> >
> > There never was a Jesus, he is a myth.
>
> All of this has been discussed many times. The statements about the
> TF do not reflect the scholarship of today but the needs of
> anti-Christian polemic.
RevG
Like it or not no church father prior to Eusebius makes mention of the
passage, which is out of context for its chapter. Origen even quotes
from the 18th book of Antiquities trying to prove a historical Jesus and
does not mention the passage. Christian assertions that the passage is
true is baseless; for even if Josephus wrote it, it contradicts the
gospels and Josephus was not a contemporary to Jesus. What Josephus says
about Jesus is not more historical than what I have to say about someone
who died before I was born.
Book 18. Chapter 3. Paragraph 3
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such
men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate,
at the suggestion of the principal men
amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at
the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the
third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
problems with the passage:
1) It refers to Jesus as more than human. Yet, Josephus who devoted
chapters to minor characters has nothing more to say.
2) It refers to the working of wonderful things, but describes not one
of those things.
3) It refers to this Jesus as a man who was a teacher; if one looks at
the gospels, Jesus is singularly unimpressive and a failure as a
teacher. Jesus fails to live up to his own unworkable ethics, he fails
to correctly quote the scriptures, he makes up bogus quotes, etc. Jesus
seems devoid of the truth. He resorts to circular logic in John 8 on
several teachings. He even claims in John 3:13, that no one ever
ascended into heaven; obviously he never heard of Elijah in II Kings
2:11.
4) It refers to Gentiles followers of Jesus, there is no evidence in the
gospels to support any Gentile apostles or disciples.
5) It refers to Pilate bending to the suggestion of the leading men,
this is not supported in the gospels. Pilate did not care about what the
leading men wanted, he grilled Jesus on one question: "are you a king"
and when Jesus finally broke, he was executed for sedition -- probably
under the Julian Law for Treason. It was a crime to claim to be king in
a Roman province if you weren't.
6) It refers to the followers of Jesus not forsaking him. The gospels
tell the story of all his followers forsaking him and one even betrayed
him.
7) It refers to Jesus appearing again on the third day alive. Note, the
passage does not say Jesus died, only that he appeared alive; not unlike
Ben Laden who is believed dead but isn't. So this is not testimony of a
resurrection, and one thing is evident: Josephus did not witness it.
8) It refers to the prophets foretelling ten thousand wonderful things
about him. That is a joke, there are only around a dozen messianic
prophecies in the Tanakh, none of which Jesus fulfilled as worded;
Josephus was a Pharisee and the son of a priest, he would have known
that there were no ten thousand prophecies. Also, which prophet said the
messiah would be killed and rise on the third day? Answer: none.
9) It refers to the 'tribe' of Christians; Josephus never referred to
any Jewish sect as a "tribe" anywhere else.
10) It calls Jesus "the Christ"; one cannot say that and remain a Jew.
So those problems show the passage to be questionable, if not a forgery.
Where the problems really get strong is that not a single church father
quotes the passage prior to Eusebius, who lied about Constantine and
distorted his own contemporary history. If Eusebius is to be believed,
Constantine was a perfect Christian; in fact he was a psychotic
murderer. A number of church fathers quote Josephus and Antiquities,
Origen even quotes from the 18th book of Antiquities trying to refute
Celsus who attacked the idea of a historical Jesus; yet, Origen never
makes mention of the very evidence he needed, which would have had to
have been right under his nose.
So although Christians lie about this passage being legit; the fact
remains that there is no evidence to prove it existed prior to Eusebius
claiming Josephus wrote it. It can be safely concluded to be a forgery.
Just like the gospels, there is no evidence of any procurator Pilate;
his actual title was Prefect -- his contemporaries would have known
that. But forgers writing a century later could have mistaken him for a
procurator.
peace
Rev Gadfly
Rev Gadfly
question:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
peace
Rev Peter
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> >
> > Rev Gadfly <RevG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3DB05B6A...@hotmail.com>...
> > > K C wrote:
> [TF]
> > >
> > > RevG
> > > It is an interpolation, totally out of context for that chapter it
> > > exists in. Prior to Eusebius no church father mentioned the passage,
> > > Origen even quoted from the same book of antiquities and never mentioned
> > > its existence -- yet this is the type of evidence Origen needed to
> > > refute Celsus.
> > >
> > > Even the gospels are forgeries, Pilate is referred to an a procurator;
> > > such an office had no military or judicial role, and worst, it did not
> > > come into existence prior to the time of Trajan who started his reign in
> > > 98CE and created it.
> > >
> > > There never was a Jesus, he is a myth.
> >
> > All of this has been discussed many times. The statements about the
> > TF do not reflect the scholarship of today but the needs of
> > anti-Christian polemic.
>
> RevG
See above.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
LOL. When was it debunked? and by who? I have yet to see ANY Christian
answer the questions raised concerning this issue; in history, if one is
going to argue that a questionable passage was written by someone, one
must be able to answer the questions that critics raise -- like in
science, the validity of a pov is only valid if it answers questions
raised. Dogmatic pronouncements by xians that such and such is true does
not make it so. Even if Josephus wrote it, it proves nothing for he was
no contemporary of Jesus and at best was recording second hand
information; but that is a leap of faith, for there is no logical reason
to believe he wrote it.
Simply put, NO CHURCH FATHER quoted the passage prior to Eusebius in the
4th century. Eusebius lied about his own contemporary history, he FORGED
a history of Constantine which amounts to forgery and lies; such a man
would not be above forging passages and crediting it to another. We know
that Origen quoted from the 18th book of Josephus' Antiquities, so why
did he not see the passage? Why did none of the other Church fathers who
quoted Josephus not mention the passage? Here is an excellent article
which raises the questions which Christians claim they have already
debunked, but have in reality evaded in fear. People who live on lies
fear the truth.
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
peace
Rev Peter
--
Roger Pearse
[Further repetition]
Roger Pearse
Well, I've already replied with a 'see above', but I think that may be
a little unfair. I know you're just repeating this elderly nonsense
for religious reasons, but candidly these points do not support, but
undermine, your fear of Christianity. We must take the religion and
the politics out of it, surely?
The arguments you repeat - I realise you've copied them, so I don't
blame you - all tend to beg certain questions. May I pose them? For
the answers to them will inevitably cast a light on the statements.
> Even if Josephus wrote it, it proves nothing for he was
> no contemporary of Jesus and at best was recording second hand
> information; but that is a leap of faith, for there is no logical reason
> to believe he wrote it.
The question begged here, then, is this: how do we know that an
ancient document is authentic?
> Simply put, NO CHURCH FATHER quoted the passage prior to Eusebius in the
> 4th century.
The question begged here is this: is this a significant statement?
Are passages authentic only if cited within 3 centuries of
composition, regardless of circulation or relevance?
> Eusebius lied about his own contemporary history, he FORGED
> a history of Constantine which amounts to forgery and lies; such a man
> would not be above forging passages and crediting it to another.
Question: is a man a liar if we can think of reasons to call him so?
Incidentally, I learn from Cameron & Hall's recent translation of the
Vita Constantini, to which you refer, that these attacks on Eusebius
derive from the political (rather than religious) urgencies of the
1850's. The European empires derived their ideological basis from
Constantine, and so attacks on his character (and so on the 'Life')
were a means to an end.
At all events, these allegations are false. Eusebius is a perfectly
honest historian, although living in a despotism he is, of course,
unable to say certain things about contemporary rulers. C&H dismiss
the allegations as 'prejudice'.
> We know that Origen quoted from the 18th book of Josephus' Antiquities,
True.
> so why did he not see the passage?
Why would he quote it? Celsus did not deny that Jesus existed.
> Why did none of the other Church fathers who
> quoted Josephus not mention the passage?
Question begged: Is it certain that they had the passage before them?
What is the context in which they quote him?
Incidentally a recent survey of all the patristic references to
Josephus (14 of them, in the 5000 pages of the ante-Nicene fathers)
suggests that in many cases, the writers had a compilation or
handbook, and not the full and bulky text. (I don't agree with this
view, but I feel obliged to repeat it).
> Here is an excellent article
> which raises the questions which Christians claim they have already
> debunked, but have in reality evaded in fear. People who live on lies
> fear the truth.
Actually the web site is that of Earl Doherty, the man who told the
atheist world that Minucius Felix wrote in 150AD (no-one is certain of
the real date, but the academic consensus is post 200). He has no
special qualification to write on Josephus.
It may come as a surprise, but few of these points are novel; indeed
most of them smell of the tomb. Why not try to stick a date on these
arguments? Ask why no-one takes them on board? Mr. D. is a fluent
and convincing writer -- if you don't have the habit of asking awkward
questions! -- but all he is trying to do is to inflate the long
exploded Tubingen theory. There is a reason why it is exploded; but
Mr. D. does not seem to know what it is. And unlike the Tubingen
writers, Mr. D. is no more a scholar than I am.
I recommend, not answers, but questions; not certainties, but
scepticism. Try doubting things you want to believe, and considering
things you would really rather not. Those who rule in our era want to
obtain popular support by offering the proles each others' bodies as a
bribe. But Plato, Cicero and Aristotle would tell them that only
slaves can be bribed that way. Don't be a slave. Think for yourself.
These stale old statements should be something anyone can look
through, regardless of religion.
I hope that doesn't sound pompous. No-one can be sure about Josephus.
The current consensus is 'genuine but corrupt' -- yet that could
change again, as it has in the last 100 years. But there is no real
reason to doubt Jesus existed. Every movement - political or
religious - tends to start with a man with a towel on his head on a
soapbox saying, "Follow me". Even if we knew nothing of Christianity
but a single letter of St. Jerome, and had to infer how Christianity
came to be, we would still presume something of the kind. This is
obvious to believer and unbeliever alike, I'm afraid.
Which is not, of course, to say that Christianity is true; rather that
anyone suggesting it came into existence some other way had better
produce some very convincing proofs. The Tubingen chaps suggested it
was invented by a committee (well, they were Victorians!), ca. 170.
But in our day we know more about committees.
Michael Painter
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.02102...@posting.google.com...
http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/enlightenment/id2.html
Do you really think that atheists decided to spend their lives studying
history to debunk the bible and other references?
The vast majority of the work was done by honest christain scholars.
You get one out of three and honest and christian are not among the choices.
K C
the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
After all, seeing that there are so many people today that want to
discredit Christianity, there would have been the same in that day.
During the first centuries after Jesus, there was many who hated
Christians, to the point that Nero burned their churches and bibles and
searched to kill them. It would have been much more simple...if their
facts were wrong...to simply publish that fact. It would have been
simple for any of the Romans, jewish sects, and so on, to just say, "We
all know it didn't happen as they say it did." Yet no one objected,
even though they hated them.
Reason, there was nothing to object to. The people knew it happened as
presented in the gospels, since they were the ones that came to see
Jesus. They would have stood up as witnesses to say it did happen, so
there was no ability for the opponents to deny it.
JTEM
"K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote
> If the bible was false information, quote me any one
> objection to it in the first centuries...any one.
I take it you mean the N.T., which didn't exist in the 1st
century.
> At least tell me a source that I may look it up if ANY ONE
> source shows anyone objecting to the facts presented in the
> gospels and letters circulating at the time.
There was no N.T. in the first century.
Michael Painter
"K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DB4C1C2...@hotmail.com...
> If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
> the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
> look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
> presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
You should probably work backwards to find what you want.
There was no NT until about the 3rd century CE. Study the council of Nicea
to find out how the final decision was made as to what went into the book.
Note that it was changed again about 1500 years later when the protestants
finally officially removed some of the books that were in that original
version.
Work back from there and you will find the closer you get to that first
century, the more versions of christianity there were. There were also a lot
more "gospels" and a lot more letters.
But there was no "bible"
K C
point. Even if the text was not done till the 2nd century, where is the
second century texts that disput it's facts. No one said it was not
true as related to history. They only disputed what those facts mean.
AS for the dating thing. Ever heard of the Essene's Their caves were
uninhabited after the 1st century, and we have gospel texts from their
caves. Why is it that people keep denying this FACT? It is only
because they don't want to see it.
K C
that goes against what you want to believe.
Michael Painter
> Again, you ignore the Josephus texts, Essene texts and anything else
> that goes against what you want to believe.
Top posting is stupid in cases like this.
Josephus came later, and the referenced test was almost certain inserted
later. No mention of the insertation was made until the third(?) century.
The Essene text has some parts of the NT.
But I'm not the one ignoring things.
A minimal amount of research on your part will show that what I claim is a
matter of historical record.
Show me evidnce that there was a single NT prior to about the 3rd century
and I'll change my mind.
K C
Michael Painter wrote:
> "K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB5969D...@hotmail.com...
>
>>Again, you ignore the Josephus texts, Essene texts and anything else
>>that goes against what you want to believe.
>
>
> Top posting is stupid in cases like this.
>
> Josephus came later, and the referenced test was almost certain inserted
> later. No mention of the insertation was made until the third(?) century.
On what do you base this claim. Do you know of a Josephus text earlier
than those that include the Jesus info?
> The Essene text has some parts of the NT.
>
> But I'm not the one ignoring things.
> A minimal amount of research on your part will show that what I claim is a
> matter of historical record.
> Show me evidnce that there was a single NT prior to about the 3rd century
> and I'll change my mind.
>
You just admitted to inclusion in the essene texts, and then you dispute
it in the next paragraph. Which do you hold to?
Michael Painter
>
>
> Michael Painter wrote:
> > "K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DB5969D...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Again, you ignore the Josephus texts, Essene texts and anything else
> >>that goes against what you want to believe.
> >
> >
> > Top posting is stupid in cases like this.
> >
> > Josephus came later, and the referenced test was almost certain inserted
> > later. No mention of the insertation was made until the third(?)
century.
>
> On what do you base this claim. Do you know of a Josephus text earlier
> than those that include the Jesus info?
No one has shown one.
>
> > The Essene text has some parts of the NT.
> >
> > But I'm not the one ignoring things.
> > A minimal amount of research on your part will show that what I claim is
a
> > matter of historical record.
> > Show me evidnce that there was a single NT prior to about the 3rd
century
> > and I'll change my mind.
> >
>
> You just admitted to inclusion in the essene texts, and then you dispute
> it in the next paragraph. Which do you hold to?
>
No I said "The Essene text has *some* parts of the NT." It is not the NT
There was NO New Testament until the third century. There were many
different versions. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
After that there was a bible with 80 books in it. This is still used by
Catholics. Many prodestant sects used it until 1885 when 14 of those books
were removed officially by the prodestants leaving the current "real" bible.
with 66 books in it.
K C
Oh, ok. I see your point now. Yes, the texts existed, but they were
not put in leather with the words Holy Bible on it. That is true, yes.
I would dispute that there was any other religion with a book that
quickly in that time period. After all, there was little way to attach
scrolls to one another.
Roger Pearse
> Study the council of Nicea
> to find out how the final decision was made as to what went into the book.
The council of Nicaea did not discuss this issue. It's a myth that
circulates on usenet.
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html>.
The other points you make are not a valid picture of how we got our
bible, but I'm sure others can point out the deficiences. Just a
hint: if we say that there were other books beyond our NT which were
treated by early Christians as scripture, then perhaps some citations
from the works of those early Christians to this effect would be in
order. Evidence, in other words, before assertion.
JTEM
Top Posting: 10 idiot points.
"K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I think it did, and you can't prove it didn't.
Proving A Negative: 20 idiot points.
> Even if the text was not done till the 2nd century, where
> is the second century texts that disput it's facts.
Even If I'm Wrong I'm Still Right: 30 idiot points.
Killfiling A Jackass: Priceless.
Rev Gadfly
>
> If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
> the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
> look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
> presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
RevG
Read "The Jesus Mysteries". There were objections to Christianity in the
2nd century, namely by Celsus; whose works Christians burned.
As for the fact of the gospels, here is a fact, there never was a
procurator named Pilate who killed Jesus. The office of procurator did
not exist prior to Trajan's time and 60 plus years after Pilate. Pilate
was in fact a Prefect as proven by archaeology.
As for the Bible, is this a fact?
NASB Luke 24:46, "And said unto them, 'Thus it is written, that the
Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, ...'."
Feel free to provide the evidence that "the christ should suffer and
rise again from the dead on the third day," is actually written in the
Jewish Scriptures.
Please fill in the following:
Book title:
Chapter number:
Verse number(s):
Guess what, you can't. No such thing is written, it is a fact that it is
a BOGUS QUOTE.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
The one begging questions are Christians like you. Why don't you answer
the questions raised, for example, how is it no church father before
Eusebius mentions the passage? Origen quoted from the very book
[actually more of a chapter] where the Josephus passage supposedly
existed and never mentions it?
>
> > Even if Josephus wrote it, it proves nothing for he was
> > no contemporary of Jesus and at best was recording second hand
> > information; but that is a leap of faith, for there is no logical reason
> > to believe he wrote it.
>
> The question begged here, then, is this: how do we know that an
> ancient document is authentic?
RevG
Josephus was born AFTER Jesus, so I am begging no questions at all.
Being born AFTER Jesus he could not very well have been an eyewitness to
anything. Just like I was born AFTER the death of JFK, so I am not an
eyewitness to anything he said or did. Also, the passage makes a number
of assumptions which do not conform to the thinking of a Pharisee, which
Josephus was; therefore, it cannot be considered contemporary EVEN IF
Josephus wrote it.
>
> > Simply put, NO CHURCH FATHER quoted the passage prior to Eusebius in the
> > 4th century.
>
> The question begged here is this: is this a significant statement?
> Are passages authentic only if cited within 3 centuries of
> composition, regardless of circulation or relevance?
RevG
Highly questionable passages are. The works of Marco Polo have been so
tampered with that it is impossible to determine what the original
looked like. If earlier church fathers had mentioned the passage, then
one could date the passage in question to closer to Josephus' time; but
as it is, a number of Church Fathers quote Josephus, and Origen even
quotes from the very part of Antiquities where the passage supposedly
existed and never mentioned it. Add it the FACT that it was first
mentioned by Eusebius and one has a problem. Consider this outright
falsification of Eusebius own contemporary history and his credibility
as a historian is shattered.
Ecclesiastical History
Book 10
Chapter 9
Source:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/eusebius/eusehe.html
"But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue
of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved
prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East
which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire
as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world
from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north
and south, even to the extremities of the declining day. ...
Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence
and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious
emperor. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire
which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for
Constantine and his sons alone. And having obliterated the
godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits
conferred upon them by
God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God,
and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which
they performed in the sight of all men."
In reality, Constantine was as monstrous as Nero.
1) Constantine murdered members of his own family.
2) Constantine was only baptized a christian on his deathbed, and
by an Arian bishop.
3) Constantine was a noted tyrant who allowed the Roman Gladiator
Games to continue.
4) Constantine had colossal images raised in his own glory across
the empire; one head alone stands at around 20 feet!
5) Constantine named a city after himself.
>
> > Eusebius lied about his own contemporary history, he FORGED
> > a history of Constantine which amounts to forgery and lies; such a man
> > would not be above forging passages and crediting it to another.
>
> Question: is a man a liar if we can think of reasons to call him so?
RevG
He is a liar when he lies; just as Eusebius did above in his shameless
flattery of Constantine. If a man will lie about his own history, there
is no reason to believe that he would not lie about past history. And
Eusebius lies about Constantine.
>
> Incidentally, I learn from Cameron & Hall's recent translation of the
> Vita Constantini, to which you refer, that these attacks on Eusebius
> derive from the political (rather than religious) urgencies of the
> 1850's. The European empires derived their ideological basis from
> Constantine, and so attacks on his character (and so on the 'Life')
> were a means to an end.
RevG
Constantine was a murderer and a bloodthirsty tyrant. That is history,
not the flattery Eusebius wrote.
>
> At all events, these allegations are false. Eusebius is a perfectly
> honest historian, although living in a despotism he is, of course,
> unable to say certain things about contemporary rulers. C&H dismiss
> the allegations as 'prejudice'.
RevG
It is one thing not to say certain things, that is understandable, but
he was no honest historian, he was a propagandist who falsified history
to his own ends. Here is the passage again:
Ecclesiastical History
Book 10
Chapter 9
Source:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/eusebius/eusehe.html
"But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue
of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved
prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East
which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire
as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world
from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north
and south, even to the extremities of the declining day. ...
Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence
and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious
emperor. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire
which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for
Constantine and his sons alone. And having obliterated the
godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits
conferred upon them by
God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God,
and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which
they performed in the sight of all men."
Did Eusebius have to lie about Constantine? The above is a lie.
>
> > We know that Origen quoted from the 18th book of Josephus' Antiquities,
>
> True.
>
> > so why did he not see the passage?
>
> Why would he quote it? Celsus did not deny that Jesus existed.
RevG
Actually, Celsus accused Christians of plagiarizing the mystery
religions for Jesus, as such, he was denying the Christian version of
Jesus. Origen quotes about John the Baptist, why do that if he was not
trying to defend a historical Jesus? Yet no mention of a passage which
is out of context for the chapter it is found in. IF one removes the
passage, the chapter follows: one misfortune of the Jews [collectively]
to the next collective misfortune. How is a jump to an individual, who
was the "christ" a collective misfortune? The very next paragraph is
along the lines: "another misfortune befell the Jews".
>
> > Why did none of the other Church fathers who
> > quoted Josephus not mention the passage?
>
> Question begged: Is it certain that they had the passage before them?
> What is the context in which they quote him?
RevG
The same reason Eusebius wrote his "history" to claim a historical Jesus
and apostles.
>
> Incidentally a recent survey of all the patristic references to
> Josephus (14 of them, in the 5000 pages of the ante-Nicene fathers)
> suggests that in many cases, the writers had a compilation or
> handbook, and not the full and bulky text. (I don't agree with this
> view, but I feel obliged to repeat it).
RevG
Many cases is not all cases. Nevertheless, when have the problems with
the passage been addressed? I have read Christians claim it is legit,
but fail to answer the problems.
>
> > Here is an excellent article
> > which raises the questions which Christians claim they have already
> > debunked, but have in reality evaded in fear. People who live on lies
> > fear the truth.
>
> Actually the web site is that of Earl Doherty, the man who told the
> atheist world that Minucius Felix wrote in 150AD (no-one is certain of
> the real date, but the academic consensus is post 200). He has no
> special qualification to write on Josephus.
RevG
And when and where have Christians answered the questions raised?
>
> It may come as a surprise, but few of these points are novel; indeed
> most of them smell of the tomb. Why not try to stick a date on these
> arguments? Ask why no-one takes them on board? Mr. D. is a fluent
> and convincing writer -- if you don't have the habit of asking awkward
> questions! -- but all he is trying to do is to inflate the long
> exploded Tubingen theory. There is a reason why it is exploded; but
> Mr. D. does not seem to know what it is. And unlike the Tubingen
> writers, Mr. D. is no more a scholar than I am.
RevG
Strange that Christians like to ask questions more than answer them.
Here are several awkward questions: how can we trust Eusebius when he
asserted Josephus wrote it?
>
> I recommend, not answers, but questions; not certainties, but
> scepticism. Try doubting things you want to believe, and considering
> things you would really rather not. Those who rule in our era want to
> obtain popular support by offering the proles each others' bodies as a
> bribe. But Plato, Cicero and Aristotle would tell them that only
> slaves can be bribed that way. Don't be a slave. Think for yourself.
> These stale old statements should be something anyone can look
> through, regardless of religion.
RevG
It is skepticism which led me to reject the Bible as a fraud filled with
historical and textual errors and contradictions. The passage was
mentioned by no one before Eusebius brought it up.
>
> I hope that doesn't sound pompous. No-one can be sure about Josephus.
> The current consensus is 'genuine but corrupt' -- yet that could
> change again, as it has in the last 100 years. But there is no real
> reason to doubt Jesus existed. Every movement - political or
> religious - tends to start with a man with a towel on his head on a
> soapbox saying, "Follow me". Even if we knew nothing of Christianity
> but a single letter of St. Jerome, and had to infer how Christianity
> came to be, we would still presume something of the kind. This is
> obvious to believer and unbeliever alike, I'm afraid.
RevG
There is very good reason to doubt Jesus existed, the gospels are filled
with historical errors, for example, calling the prefect Pilate a
procurator at least 60 years before that title came into existence.
Also, a procurator was an accountant, a mere fiscal agent with no
judicial powers and certainly no military authority.
No contemporary of Jesus mentioned him or Christians.
One of my favorite errors is where Jesus was no the 4th day after his
baptism. According to the synoptics he "immediately" went off to be
tempted in the wilderness fasting for 40 days; but in John, he
supposedly is at a wedding eating and drinking and making wine.
Obviously both cannot be true.
Another favorite is Jesus telling his listeners that 'no one ascended
into heaven', yet any Jewish child would have known the story of Elijah
who supposedly did the very thing Jesus said never happened. Can we say
Gentile writer ignorant of the Jewish scriptures.
>
> Which is not, of course, to say that Christianity is true; rather that
> anyone suggesting it came into existence some other way had better
> produce some very convincing proofs. The Tubingen chaps suggested it
> was invented by a committee (well, they were Victorians!), ca. 170.
> But in our day we know more about committees.
RevG
Christianity came into existence the same way Mithraism came into
existence. Some people invented a myth and others spread it. I suggest
you read about Carlos in Carl Sagan's "Demon Hunted World", it was a
prank in modern times and it only took a mere 7 days for the totally
unknown "Carlos" to become a legend and draw thousands of interested
people.
Or are you going to suggest that Mithra was real?
Rev Gadfly
>
> I think it did, and you can't prove it didn't.
RevG
I can't prove that Mithra exists, does that mean I should start to
worship him?
I will tell you what did not exist in the 1st century: procurators.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
There is no evidence of the gospels existing in the 1st century, for
example, the church fathers of that time make no mention of any written
gospels and never quote them. Paul in his letters gives us evidence
against the gospel of Matthew existing; Paul says that we [christians]
don't know how to pray, which means Matthew's "the lord's prayer" did
not exist in his time.
Peter van Velzen
Are you trying to say, the Gospel was not written after any earlier document,
nor after a mouth-to-mounth story from 33BC
but that they were contructed by Christians who read Josephus?!?!
I guess there's no proof . . . .
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen Oktober 2002
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
K C
tell the power company to cut your power, tell the post office to stop
your mail. Of course, I wouldn't do that, because I assume the
allegations of your existance is sound.
K C
your empty charges such as the Essene texts and words of Josephus.
However, if you dislike that, you'll just say it had to be made up
because...because...well, because you want it that way. Right?
K C
history something that would be made up later. Funny.
K C
These are just a few. If this is not enough, there are more.
By the way, I was reading in PS 45 today and noticed verses 6-7. This
is spoken to God and refers to His God. It would seem to be an
indication of the trinity in the OT.
K C
You admit the possibility here, and take note that I never said it was a
source from Jesus's lifetime. By the way, using your standard, we
shouldn't trust things Kennedy is supposed to have said as we would be
relying on sources after Kennedy was gone.
>
>>>Simply put, NO CHURCH FATHER quoted the passage prior to Eusebius in the
>>>4th century.
>>
>>The question begged here is this: is this a significant statement?
>>Are passages authentic only if cited within 3 centuries of
>>composition, regardless of circulation or relevance?
>
>
> RevG
> Highly questionable passages are. The works of Marco Polo have been so
> tampered with that it is impossible to determine what the original
> looked like. If earlier church fathers had mentioned the passage, then
> one could date the passage in question to closer to Josephus' time; but
> as it is, a number of Church Fathers quote Josephus, and Origen even
> quotes from the very part of Antiquities where the passage supposedly
> existed and never mentioned it. Add it the FACT that it was first
> mentioned by Eusebius and one has a problem. Consider this outright
> falsification of Eusebius own contemporary history and his credibility
> as a historian is shattered.
>
There was no telephone or computer. Just how many copies of Josephus
works do you think were out there. It would have taken a while for the
church fathers to have a copy to consider and even longer for someone to
take the interest in searching through an opposing religion's text for
information defending facts that were not in dispute.
The rest of this post is just your trying to invalidate sources for your
own personal gain. If you try to invalidate the bible, you feel you
have more freedom to do what it says is sin. After all, you admit that
you discredit the bible due to personal assumptions.
Michael Painter
>
<snip >
>
> You admit the possibility here, and take note that I never said it was a
> source from Jesus's lifetime. By the way, using your standard, we
> shouldn't trust things Kennedy is supposed to have said as we would be
> relying on sources after Kennedy was gone.
>
<snip>
There is massive evidence for the existence of Kennedy.
There is massive evidence for many of the people mentioned in the NT.
There is massive evidence for the existence of Mohammad the Prophet who
claims that god told him JC was not god.
There is massive evidence for the existence of the Reverend Moon who says
the same thing and claims he is the messiah.
There is no evidence outside the bible for the existence of Christ.
You can deny it but if you actually research it you will deny much of
written history.
Rev Gadfly
[snipped]
> >
> >
> > RevG
> > Josephus was born AFTER Jesus, so I am begging no questions at all.
> > Being born AFTER Jesus he could not very well have been an eyewitness to
> > anything. Just like I was born AFTER the death of JFK, so I am not an
> > eyewitness to anything he said or did. Also, the passage makes a number
> > of assumptions which do not conform to the thinking of a Pharisee, which
> > Josephus was; therefore, it cannot be considered contemporary EVEN IF
> > Josephus wrote it.
> >
>
KC
> You admit the possibility here, and take note that I never said it was a
> source from Jesus's lifetime. By the way, using your standard, we
> shouldn't trust things Kennedy is supposed to have said as we would be
> relying on sources after Kennedy was gone.
RevG
Not the same thing. There is strong evidence for Kennedy, we have
primary and secondary sources, artifacts, films, letters written by him,
etc. to show that he existed. I do not doubt the historical existence of
Pilate or Herod or Caiaphas, or Judas of Galilee, or for that matter
John the Baptist. There is some evidence for their existence, and more
importantly, there is nothing outside of nature to account for them. The
story of a man born of a virgin, performing public miracles in large
numbers, and who ends up having the Elite plot his destruction would
require better evidence than a collection of four accounts which fail to
corroborate, contradict each other repeatedly, and were obviously
written after the fact does not deserve belief. We should only believe
those things which have evidence to support it, or at least does not beg
a legion of questions. When I was in the process of deconverting from
Christianity, first I recognized the Bible as a human invention with all
the failings of such an invention, then one day in
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy a fundy whose ID was Joe#7 brought up
an interesting point. At the time I believed in a Jesus, but not in a
divinely inspired, or even well written, Bible; Joe #7 wrote something
along the lines: if it was not for the NT, how would you even know Jesus
existed. That was a profound question, and the seed was planted which
eventually led to my rejection of Jesus as a Harry Potter type of
magician; for the gospels are not historical, as such, there is no
historical evidence for Jesus -- for no other work supports the claims
Christians make about this man-god.
There is no more historical evidence for a Jesus Christ, than for
Mithra, Prestor John, Harry Potter, ....
>
> >
> >>>Simply put, NO CHURCH FATHER quoted the passage prior to Eusebius in the
> >>>4th century.
> >>
> >>The question begged here is this: is this a significant statement?
> >>Are passages authentic only if cited within 3 centuries of
> >>composition, regardless of circulation or relevance?
> >
> >
> > RevG
> > Highly questionable passages are. The works of Marco Polo have been so
> > tampered with that it is impossible to determine what the original
> > looked like. If earlier church fathers had mentioned the passage, then
> > one could date the passage in question to closer to Josephus' time; but
> > as it is, a number of Church Fathers quote Josephus, and Origen even
> > quotes from the very part of Antiquities where the passage supposedly
> > existed and never mentioned it. Add it the FACT that it was first
> > mentioned by Eusebius and one has a problem. Consider this outright
> > falsification of Eusebius own contemporary history and his credibility
> > as a historian is shattered.
> >
>
KC
> There was no telephone or computer. Just how many copies of Josephus
> works do you think were out there. It would have taken a while for the
> church fathers to have a copy to consider and even longer for someone to
> take the interest in searching through an opposing religion's text for
> information defending facts that were not in dispute.
RevG
First, Josephus' Antiquities is not a religious book, but a quasi
historical work by a Jew about his people. We know from the writings of
the Church fathers that several prior to Eusebius knew of Josephus, but
none mention the passage. Add to that the place of the passage and its
Christian wording and one is left with the rational conclusion that it
is an interpolation. IMHO, the Arabian version of the passage is at
least worded in such a way that could have been written by a Jew like
Josephus, but again, even that passage has no business in the chapter it
is found in, and was not quoted by any church father including Eusebius.
Second, we know that many ancient writings were interpolated with forged
passages, almost no work goes untouched. Take Marco Polo's "Travels",
the book is not even a thousand years old, yet was so badly interpolated
that it is impossible to figure out what it was that Polo first
published. So imagine how much a work could have been tampered that are
2000 years old. In this vein, the footnotes of many bibles claim that
the longer ending of Mark 16, verses 9 upward did not exist in most of
the earliest works, implying interpolation. For example, the NASB says:
48 Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20. Or another example,
in the NASB the footnote, number 40, for Mark 14:68, says: Later mss
add: and a cock crowed. So if it was added, then it is an interpolation;
and can even be considered a forgery.
KC
>
> The rest of this post is just your trying to invalidate sources for your
> own personal gain. If you try to invalidate the bible, you feel you
> have more freedom to do what it says is sin. After all, you admit that
> you discredit the bible due to personal assumptions.
RevG
LOL. First, the sources for Jesus' historical existence are at best
suspect, at worst all out fakes [which is my opinion]. Second, what
personal gain do I get? The idea that sin even exists cannot be shown to
be real. I don't believe in 'sin', that is a priestly fiction designed
to steal people of their property; I believe in ethics and morality
based on Reason, not the situational ethics Jews, Christians, and
Muslims indulge in. Third, my views are not merely assumptions, I can
provide logical arguments based on rational inferences from the
evidence, or lack of. For example, I can rationally claim that the
gospels were written after the title "procurator" came into use, that
office did not exist until the emperor Trajan's time, who started to
reign 62 years AFTER Pilate was removed from his prefectorship in 36CE.
Simply put, there was no procurator named Pilate who executed Jesus; a
procurator did not have that kind of authority, a procurator was a
fiscal agent, or in modern terms, an accountant; history and archaeology
shows that Pilate was a Prefect, a different office entirely -- so how
could his own contemporaries [the apostles] have mistakenly called him
by a title that would not exist for decades to come?
Simple: they couldn't. If the gospels could not even get a mere title
right, then why trust anything else its authors claim.
Rev Gadfly
>
> I can't prove you exist, so maybe I should documents of your existance,
> tell the power company to cut your power, tell the post office to stop
> your mail. Of course, I wouldn't do that, because I assume the
> allegations of your existance is sound.
RevG
Illogical, someone wrote this message now, didn't they?
Now, where is there evidence of a Jesus Christ outside writings written
long after the fact?
Rev Gadfly
>
> Empty charges. How convenient. I then have to provide proof against
> your empty charges such as the Essene texts and words of Josephus.
> However, if you dislike that, you'll just say it had to be made up
> because...because...well, because you want it that way. Right?
RevG
Then you answer the questions about why the passage is such a problem:
1) Why is it out of context for the chapter it is found in?
2) Why is its wording Christian, rather than Jewish?
3) Why did no church father prior to Eusebius?
Rev Gadfly
[snipped for brevity]
> >
> > RevG
> > There is no evidence of the gospels existing in the 1st century, for
> > example, the church fathers of that time make no mention of any written
> > gospels and never quote them. Paul in his letters gives us evidence
> > against the gospel of Matthew existing; Paul says that we [christians]
> > don't know how to pray, which means Matthew's "the lord's prayer" did
> > not exist in his time.
Peter
> >
> Do I understand correctly
> Are you trying to say, the Gospel was not written after any earlier document,
> nor after a mouth-to-mounth story from 33BC
> but that they were contructed by Christians who read Josephus?!?!
>
> I guess there's no proof . . . .
RevG
No, I am saying there is no need for a historical person to have a
religion based on him; for example, Siva is worshipped by millions, yet
there is no evidence for a historical Siva, or Mithra, or Heracles, ....
From a biblical point of view, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke used
Mark as a guide, where Mark goes they go, but fail to agree on details,
where Mark does not go, they deviate greatly. Josephus had his work
Antiquity of the Jews interpolated by Christians trying to provide a
nonChristian source for a historical Jesus.
Rev Gadfly
>
> Humorous. Yes, Josephus was a prophet..didn't you know? He wrote as
> history something that would be made up later. Funny.
RevG
Josephus wrote about the real and mythical past of the Jews; adding in
plenty of fictions to entertain his readers.
Rev Gadfly
>
> IS 53, PS 22, Hos 6:1-11
>
> These are just a few. If this is not enough, there are more.
RevG
First, Psalms is not a prophetic book, didn't you even know that?
Second, I don't see these words in any of the above: "the christ should
suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day," as for Hos. 6:1,
take a closer look at it. Isaiah 53 is not about God, but about the
Jews; Ps 22 is repeatedly misrepresented -- its context is this:
[Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:22, "22 Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My
firstborn.'"
[Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:23, "23 Let My son go, that he may worship Me."
Now, when did Jesus fit that?
Libertarius
>
> "K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB78A01...@hotmail.com...
> >
>
> <snip >
> >
> > You admit the possibility here, and take note that I never said it was a
> > source from Jesus's lifetime. By the way, using your standard, we
> > shouldn't trust things Kennedy is supposed to have said as we would be
> > relying on sources after Kennedy was gone.
> >
> <snip>
> There is massive evidence for the existence of Kennedy.
> There is massive evidence for many of the people mentioned in the NT.
> There is massive evidence for the existence of Mohammad the Prophet who
> claims that god told him JC was not god.
> There is massive evidence for the existence of the Reverend Moon who says
> the same thing and claims he is the messiah.
> There is no evidence outside the bible for the existence of Christ.
===>But there appears to be some etxra-biblical evidence for JESUS.
(Christ being an invention of Saul/Paul of Tarsus).
An indirect evidence was recently found in the form of a burial box
(ossuary) with the inscription:
YA'AKOV BAR YOSEF AKHUI DIYESHUA
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
It does look like there was a "James son of Joseph", who was
known as the "brother of Jesus". All three names were fairly
common, but the three occurring together and at the time James
was reportedly murdered suggest this might be a good evidence.
(SEE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59389-2002Oct21.html)
Libertarius
====================
Michael Painter
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3DB88150.6A7870B4@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
The probability was estimated that there would be 20 such name combinations
at that time.
Surely a god would have made a bit of effort to let people know who he was.
At least as much as Mohammed has.
Roger Pearse
I was going to reply, but you didn't answer any of my questions or
address any of the issues. All you did was repeat the same old
faith-hate nonsense. Why not think for yourself, for a change? All
those silly accusations are very wearying to the intelligent.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
But it was not dug out by archaeologists digging in a 1st century layer
around Jerusalem; it pops out of thin air [so to speak] in a private
collection. It is not too far to conclude the box is old, but the
inscription is a fake -- afterall, a student of the language could have
made it. For example, I know some old English, so I could write on an
old casket something like: here lie the bones of William Shakespeare.
From outward appearances, it would look legit. People have to keep in
mind that the production of relics was extremely common in Byzantine
Europe and in Christendom. It is a curious item, but not a historical
one.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
Why didn't you answer the questions I raised? It is a normal tactic of
Christians to evade answering questions by asking them. I will ask three
questions, try and answer them:
What evidence is there for the existence of the passage before Eusebius
mentioned it in the 4th century? Eusebius' credibility is highly
questionable over his distortion of his own contemporary history.
Why did no previous Church father mention it?
Why is it out of context for its chapter?
These are not minor questions. Afterall, you are the one asserting it is
legit [at least in part], so it should not be too hard to answer the
questions involved. Give us a good reason to believe it is legit in
light of the problems.
Rev Gadfly
>
> Rev Gadfly wrote:
> > K C wrote:
> >
> >>doesn't fit their view of Josephus. However, that view is based on
> >>censored texts.
> >
> >
> > RevG
> > Actually, my view is that Josephus was a poor historian. The passage in
> > question just doesn't belong in the chapter it is found, and its wording
> > is Christian in context -- something Josephus was not.
> >
>
KC
> Assume that the Christ event happened. Would Josephus have been a good
> historian to have ignored it? No, in order to make his history
> authentic, he would need to admit it. By the way, you should know that
> Josephus wasn't a very orthodox jew either.
RevG
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Christ event happened,
Josephus would have been a very poor historian to pass over it with a
mere seven sentences, yet write chapters about minor christ wannabes and
zealots.
Of course, if the Christ event never happened, then it is obvious why he
would have ignored it. We know that Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish
theologian and historian living in Jesus' time, and writing about the
events in Judaea never mentioned him. As did Justus of Tiberius, who
happened to have lived in Capernaum in the very time frame that Jesus
would have visited that small town.
Josephus was not an orthodox Jew, such a creature did not exist prior to
the 19th century CE. But he was a well educated Pharisee the son of a
priest; he would have been privy to any interesting details of the time.
>
> > KC
> >
> >>History is not subjective. It is a process of determining facts based
> >>on texts.
> >
> >
> > RevG
> > Actually, I have a degree in history. History is extremely subjective
> > with few facts; for example, it is a fact that in 1939 Hitler invaded
> > Poland, the motives for the invasion though, is wide open to
> > interpretations.
> >
>
KC
> Correct. History records the fact that it happened and possibly says
> the various options of what his motive are (though that is no longer
> history). However, subjective conclusions (limiting options) is not and
> should never be history. I'm surprised your history education didn't
> say that, mine did. Before you start preaching education credentials, I
> probably have as many history credits as you do.
RevG
Possibly, I cannot say. I have a BA in History [specialization] from
Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. A subjective conclusion would
be that Jesus is a historical person in light of the lack of evidence. I
don't believe in a historical Jesus for the same reason I don't believe
in a historical Mithra -- lack of evidence.
>
> > Just like Jesus, there is no evidence for a historical Jesus; the NT
> > itself, and especially Paul, seem far more interested in a theological
> > Jesus than a historical one. Paul is believed to have been the first NT
> > writer, but he avoids dealing with a historical Jesus. If the book, "The
> > Jesus Mysteries, ..." asserts that Paul was a Gnostic and proceed to
> > argue from that point. I do not agree with everything they say, but they
> > provide some very interesting 'facts' to make one wonder when and why
> > the gospels were written in the first place.
> >
> > peace
> >
>
KC
> So, we have texts from within a century (or a few centuries if I was of
> your view) that says Jesus existed. Paul, himself, write of that as a
> fact. However, because you don't want to hear that, you are going to
> count as a source a twentieth century book as more accurate. Where is
> the ancient objections to the facts in the gospels. I don't think you
> are approaching this historically but with personal desires for the
> conclusion.
RevG
First, texts can be tampered with, so they need to be examined with an
extremely critical eye. Christian texts are no exception.
Second, the gospels had to have been written after the creation of the
office of Curator, you could not have had a proconsul before the office
of consul existed, just like you could not have a procurator prior to
the creation of that office by Trajan [98CE -117CE]. So there never was
a procurator named Pilate who executed Jesus; if Pilate was a
procurator, than he lacked the authority to judge anyone, he was in
effect a mere accountant, but history and archeaology show that Pilate
was in fact a Prefect -- an office that no NT writer identifies.
Third, strangely enough, many 20th century books are far more reliable
than what was left to us by ancient historians. It was a common tactic
by all ancient historians, including Josephus, to write their own
speeches and put them in the mouth of historical characters. So even if
there was a historical Jesus, his verbal exchanges with Pilate were
invented, the apostles were not witness to it; also, the disagreement
between Matthew and Luke one the details of Jesus' execution is notable:
for example, in Matthew, both theives mock Jesus on the cross, but in
Luke, only one thief does, while the other defends Jesus -- and Mark and
John are silent on this matter. It should be noted that according to
Roman Law, stealing was not a capital offence.
Fourth, I was once a Christian, but when I started to ask historical
questions about the Bible, it quickly was exposed as false. Take Eze. 26
and Eze. 29 contradicting each other; the first says Neb. would destroy
Tyre and the city would be lost from history [that is a prophecy by YHWH
himself: thus says ....], but a mere 3 chapters later we are told Neb
could not do it! Not very impressive.
Maybe you should look at the bible from the historical point of view
rather than trying to argue it is true because you cannot face the
possiblity of the consequences that it may not be. There is no virtue in
believing something true which isn't.
Peter van Velzen
> RevG
> No, I am saying there is no need for a historical person to have a
> religion based on him; for example, Siva is worshipped by millions, yet
> there is no evidence for a historical Siva, or Mithra, or Heracles, ....
>
> From a biblical point of view, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke used
> Mark as a guide, where Mark goes they go, but fail to agree on details,
> where Mark does not go, they deviate greatly. Josephus had his work
> Antiquity of the Jews interpolated by Christians trying to provide a
> nonChristian source for a historical Jesus.
>
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
So you are trying to say, that no matter when the Marc gospel was
written, Paul had no knowledge of it, so how could Josephus?
So you propose Josephus to be contaminated by later Christian
rendering?
Could be.
Guess we weill never know who thought up what part of the gospel, and
when.
Still, without evidence to the contrary, I will suppose that in places
where the Gospel, actually quotes Jesus, it has trying to do so
accurately.
I also assume, without evidence to the contrary, that a historical
person was the bases for these stories.
Appearantly he didn't mean a great deal to the "civilized" (roman)
world until much later. But so what.
Alt. Atheism hardly ever gets mentioned on CNN, does it?
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen Oktober 2002
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Libertarius
===>Perhaps a "God" would have, but it was done by HUMANS.
20 name combinations, fine. But the ossuaries would have the
name of the person, not the name of the brother. For whom,
other than the followers of Yeshua and his bro, would
that connection be important and relevant? -- L.
Michael Painter
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3DB96A5E.DF21E038@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> Michael Painter wrote:
> >
> > "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
> > message news:3DB88150.6A7870B4@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> > > Michael Painter wrote:
> > > >
> ===>Perhaps a "God" would have, but it was done by HUMANS.
> 20 name combinations, fine. But the ossuaries would have the
> name of the person, not the name of the brother. For whom,
> other than the followers of Yeshua and his bro, would
> that connection be important and relevant? -- L.
Few if any in my opinion. However there are millions of web sites and a
whole new class "blogs" that are dedicated to people putting family
information up for the world to see.
It's nothing new.
As one article pointed out it is rare but may have been the name of the
owner of the place it was kept.
K C
And..once again, you deny something not for definitive reasons but
simply because you do not want it to be true.
K C
And. once again, your reasoning for not accepting the bible is due to
your own opinion. To say, things have been faked before is about as
non-direct as anything you've posted. Then, to say that the Josephus
info has to be wrong simply because he mentioned Jesus is pure,
unadulterated selective censorship.
K C
arguementative foolishness. It might be coming near time to do that to
him as well.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him. Prov 26:4
Hawke
> I've already had to cut off one conversation with someone due to simple
> arguementative foolishness. It might be coming near time to do that to
> him as well.
>
> Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
> him. Prov 26:4
Didn't Jesus say to call no man a fool?
Bill
K C
saying what they want to be true. There is no manuscipt dated of old
that is missing the Jesus texts. The rest of the webisite you provided
is simply people discussing why it doesn't matter that there is no
history to back their claims. Pure selected blindness.
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> Here is a good article on why Josephus did not write the passage in
> question:
>
>
> http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
>
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
>
>
K C
There's a flaw with that. There is a testamony that Jesus did exist,
actually many of them. Christian church papers and documents for
thousands of years. Even if you blindly block out the sources near
Jesus's lifetime, there are later testaments to that existance. That is
a secondary witness. So, given a choice between a secondary witness and
a much later, unproven objection to that, the witness gets more weight.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
Would you automatically believe an inscription about a historical Siva
which popped out of a private collection? I don't necessarily even deny
it, but these are issues which cannot be ignored just because it suits
Christians:
1) How do we know it isn't a fake?
2) How do we know that the Jesus, James, and Joseph mentioned are the
same ones of bible fame?
3) How old is the box?
If it is legit, it can survive a skeptical examination. For example, if
a scroll popped up in a private collection supposedly written by Paul
who says that he made the whole Jesus thing up -- would you accept it on
face value?
Rev Gadfly
>
> >
> > RevG
> > No, I am saying there is no need for a historical person to have a
> > religion based on him; for example, Siva is worshipped by millions, yet
> > there is no evidence for a historical Siva, or Mithra, or Heracles, ....
> >
> > From a biblical point of view, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke used
> > Mark as a guide, where Mark goes they go, but fail to agree on details,
> > where Mark does not go, they deviate greatly. Josephus had his work
> > Antiquity of the Jews interpolated by Christians trying to provide a
> > nonChristian source for a historical Jesus.
> >
> > peace
> >
> > Rev Peter
>
> So you are trying to say, that no matter when the Marc gospel was
> written, Paul had no knowledge of it, so how could Josephus?
> So you propose Josephus to be contaminated by later Christian
> rendering?
> Could be.
RevG
According to what I read, Paul was the first NT writer, therefore, the
gospel of Mark did not exist prior to his writings. This makes sense,
Paul remarks: "we don't know how to pray", so obviously the "lord's
prayer" was not around in his time.
>
> Guess we weill never know who thought up what part of the gospel, and
> when.
> Still, without evidence to the contrary, I will suppose that in places
> where the Gospel, actually quotes Jesus, it has trying to do so
> accurately.
> I also assume, without evidence to the contrary, that a historical
> person was the bases for these stories.
RevG
Matthew places Jesus' birth 10 years prior to Luke. That is historical.
>
> Appearantly he didn't mean a great deal to the "civilized" (roman)
> world until much later. But so what.
> Alt. Atheism hardly ever gets mentioned on CNN, does it?
RevG
I am not an Atheist. I am unaware of any Christian ng being mentioned
either.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
Why should I accept the bible as true? Here is a quick history lesson
for you:
In Matthew, we are told that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod
the Great; the Herod described in that book is obviously the same tyrant
described in Philo's writings as well as Josephus' histories. We know
that Herod the great died in 4 BCE. So far everything seems ok in that
regard.
In Luke we are given a different time frame. We are told that Jesus was
born in the same year that Quinrinius was legate of Syria; that has been
dated, thanks to archaeology and ancient texts to be 6 CE, 10 years
after Herod the Great died. To add to the confusion, in chapter 3, Luke
tells us that in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign John the Baptist
started to preach, that is 29 CE, we are also told that Jesus turned 30
AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius reign. So Jesus could not have been born
prior to 1 BCE; and Luke's timeline holds. If Jesus was born in 6 CE,
then he turned 30 in 36 CE [the same year Pilate was removed from his
office as Prefect], which is after the 15th year of Tiberius' reign.
So there is a contradiction as to when Jesus was born;
Matthew says he was born before Herod died, so he had to have been born
BEFORE Herod died in 4 CE.
Mark doesn't mention the birth of Jesus, same as John.
Luke places the year of Jesus' birth in 6 CE, and Jesus turns 30 only
after the 15th year of Tiberius' reign.
Obviously both cannot be correct.
Add in Matthew's claim when he gives the genealogy of listing 42
generations [14x3], but only lists 41 names -- that doesn't help his
credibility.
Add in Luke's claim made in Luke 3:1-2: In the 15th year of Tiberius'
reign, we find:
- Pilate is a procurator.
- Herod is tetrarch of Galilee.
- Philip is tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
- Lysanias is tetrarch of Abiline.
Now keep in mind Luke claimed to be writing an "exact truth" at the very
beginning of his gospel. But there are many problems which discredit his
claim:
- Pilate was a PREFECT, not a procurator.
- According to Josephus [Antiquities, book 15, chapter 4, section 1],
Lysanias was killed at the instigation of Cleopatra, this would have
been at least 50 years before the 15th year of Tiberius' reign.
So historically speaking, there is not a single reason to believe the
gospels were written prior to the time of Trajan, 98CE; for the office
of Curator only came into existence at that time, and so did PROcurator.
A "Pro-" in Roman offices meant: "having the power of ____ without being
____."
If you want to believe the gospels, then you must ignore the history.
Rev Gadfly
>
> I've already had to cut off one conversation with someone due to simple
> arguementative foolishness. It might be coming near time to do that to
> him as well.
RevG
How is it foolishness to ask questions about the bible and the box?
Is your faith so fragile that it cannot withstand obvious questions?
Here are two for you:
1) Was Jesus born before Herod the great died, or when Quinrinius
carried out his first census?
2) How can we rule out the possibility that the box is not a fake?
Rev Gadfly
RevG
LOL. There was no organized Christian church, much less documents, until
centuries later. Also, how do you know if such documents exist that they
were not forged?
Actually, my objection is valid, the gospels were not written until
Trajan created the office of Curator, and obviously, Procurator; and
Josephus was interpolated with a passage out of context for its chapter
and person.
If Josephus is such a good historian, than do you accept his claim that
Lysanias, which Luke claims lived in the 15th year of Tiberius reign,
dying at least a half century before?
Rev Gadfly
>
> I went to your modern day "source" which is nothing more than people
> saying what they want to be true. There is no manuscipt dated of old
> that is missing the Jesus texts. The rest of the webisite you provided
> is simply people discussing why it doesn't matter that there is no
> history to back their claims. Pure selected blindness.
RevG
Can you make an intelligent question? Lots of mss exist which do not
mention the Jesus texts. As far as I can tell, there is no mention of
the gospels until the 2nd century; for example, Justin Martyr never
mentioned any written gospels nor did he quote them.
If you are going to argue a historical Jesus, then where is your
evidence? I am saying that apart from questionable passages and works
[gospels] there is no evidence for a Jesus.
K C
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> K C wrote:
>
>>I've already had to cut off one conversation with someone due to simple
>>arguementative foolishness. It might be coming near time to do that to
>>him as well.
>
>
> RevG
> How is it foolishness to ask questions about the bible and the box?
>
> Is your faith so fragile that it cannot withstand obvious questions?
>
> Here are two for you:
>
> 1) Was Jesus born before Herod the great died, or when Quinrinius
> carried out his first census?
Honestly, I don't know. I don't know anything about the census. I will
look it up, though.
>
> 2) How can we rule out the possibility that the box is not a fake?
>
How can we rule out the moon landing was faked? Questioning something
as fake based only on your want for it to be fake is not objective.
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
>
>
K C
claim the dates in the bible are false due to when someone was in a
position (according to your unnamed sources). However, how do we know
your dated sources are correct. First of all, you don't even name the
sources (smart, since I would check them out). Then, what are the
earliest copies of those texts. Could your sources be innaccurate? If
your answer is that they are not inaccurate only because you want them
to be accurate, then you are guilty of the same source assumption of
correctness that you impune me with now. Lastly, you are critical of
the bible for the title given (in english) to Pilate. The bible was not
written in English. Sorry to burst your bubble.
K C
So, you assume everything is false until you can prove it could not have
been faked. OK. Cross out the moon landing, wiccan religious history,
the existance of a man named Socrates and more. They could easily have
been faked. Don't you dare teach them as history, if you use the same
standard you apply here.
K C
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> K C wrote:
>
>>IS 53, PS 22, Hos 6:1-11
>>
>>These are just a few. If this is not enough, there are more.
>
>
> RevG
> First, Psalms is not a prophetic book, didn't you even know that?
> Second, I don't see these words in any of the above: "the christ should
> suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day," as for Hos. 6:1,
> take a closer look at it. Isaiah 53 is not about God, but about the
> Jews; Ps 22 is repeatedly misrepresented -- its context is this:
>
My friend, read IS 53:6. It says that all we (either mankind or simply
Israel) have been led astray and that, therefore, he has put the sins on
Him for us all. Notice it says, for US ALL. Again, the Him in the
verse is not part of the US ALL. So, the one that beared and died for
the sins in Isaiah 53 is not Israel. Israel, according to the very
words, was part of the source of the sins put on HIM.
>
> [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:22, "22 Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My
> firstborn.'"
> [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:23, "23 Let My son go, that he may worship Me."
>
> Now, when did Jesus fit that?
>
They were symbolicly firstborn as the first nation to follow Him. But
if you actually meant born of God, it can only be seen one of two ways.
A. created - we all are created of God through Adam and Eve's
creation. OR B. God from God, created infinity from infinity. God
created the man Jesus with His seed and His nature. This was truely,
His Firstborn among man.
Psalms 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked
have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
22:17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
22:18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. "
When has Israel had its hands and feet pierced? When have they had
their garments gambled over? It happened in Jesus Christ, born of an
Israeli mother, son of Israel and son of God...His firstborn among man.
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
>
K C
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> K C wrote:
>
>>I went to your modern day "source" which is nothing more than people
>>saying what they want to be true. There is no manuscipt dated of old
>>that is missing the Jesus texts. The rest of the webisite you provided
>>is simply people discussing why it doesn't matter that there is no
>>history to back their claims. Pure selected blindness.
>
>
> RevG
> Can you make an intelligent question? Lots of mss exist which do not
> mention the Jesus texts. As far as I can tell, there is no mention of
> the gospels until the 2nd century; for example, Justin Martyr never
> mentioned any written gospels nor did he quote them.
>
> If you are going to argue a historical Jesus, then where is your
> evidence? I am saying that apart from questionable passages and works
> [gospels] there is no evidence for a Jesus.
>
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
>
This is the second time I've had to post this information to dispute the
Justin Martyr lie. Again, as I did in another group, I am going to have
to point out that your information is exactly opposite to the truth
about Martyr. I will provide a number of quotes of his that not only
testify to the gospels, but he said that it was not really something
that needed to be debated about the existence of Jesus, because it was
so well known he did exist...something I have been saying all along.
By the way, this is going to knock against your credibility to me in the
future. Since you made this unsubstantiated and wreckless claim, it
brings into question every other claim you have made.
Justin Martyr Quotes
A. "That Christ is the firstborn of God, being the logos of which every
race of people have been partakers, we have been taught and have
declared. (I Apol. 46.2, c.f. John 1:1,9)
I have already shown that he was the only-begotten of the Father of the
universe, having been begotten by him in a peculiar manner as his Logos
and Power, and having afterward become man through the virgin, as we
have learned from the Memoirs." (Dial. 105.1)
B. "Moreover also among us a man named John, one of the apostles of
Christ, prophesied in a revelation made to him that those who have
believed on our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem; and
that hereafter the general and, in short, the eternal resurrection and
judgment of all will likewise take place." (Dial. 81.4)
C. "..in the Memoirs [Gospels] which, as I have said, were drawn up by
the apostles and their followers, [it is recorded] that sweat fell like
drops of blood while he [Jesus] was praying, and saying, 'If it be
possible, let this cup pass'." Dial. 103.8
D. "...when a star rose in heaven at the time of his [Jesus'] birth, as
is recorded in the Memoirs of his apostles, the Magi from Arabia,
recognizing the sign by this, came and worshipped him." Dial. 106.4
E. "But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should
prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed
what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be
the Son of God? we will now offer proof, not trusting mere assertions,
but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before
these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that
have happened and are happening just as they were predicted; and this
will, we think appear even to you the strongest and truest evidence. " 1
Apology Chapter XXX
F. "But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of
what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and
fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius
Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as
though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us
anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is
the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of
whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably(5)
are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among
the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the
barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias,
and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount,
because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before
Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and
slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word,
according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of
a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and
rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to
comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the
proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to
the proof of those things which are urgent. " 1 Apology chapter CHAP. XLVI
Michael Painter
maintained for over 30 years absolutely none.
Realize that it is ongoing and that people who were not born at the time are
now faking the results of bouncing light off the moon.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
No, I assume things are false when there is no reason to believe them
true. This box was not discovered in an archaeological dig in a first
century level, it pops out in a private collection. If this object was
legit, then what is its history, where does it come from? How do we rule
out the possibility that it is a fake considering it not being mentioned
in any church record, nor it being found in a proper dig? How do we know
that the reference to Jesus does not mean a different Jesus?
> OK. Cross out the moon landing, wiccan religious history,
> the existance of a man named Socrates and more.
RevG
None of those things violate the rules of nature; but a miracle man
rising from the dead does. The more extraordinary the claims, the more
evidence is necessary. Christians dismiss the Muslim claim that Mohammed
rode a horse into heaven; why? Lack of proof.
> They could easily have
> been faked. Don't you dare teach them as history, if you use the same
> standard you apply here.
RevG
There is plenty of references for Socrates and other ancient people,
there is evidence of a moon landing; but there is no evidence of a
historical Jesus, and there is no evidence that the box is not a fake.
I can apply the strongest standards on the Bible and its assertions. A
book supposedly inspired by an omniscient being should hold up to
scrutiny.
Rev Gadfly
>
> Do you even know anything about how the bibles came about? First, you
> claim the dates in the bible are false due to when someone was in a
> position (according to your unnamed sources). However, how do we know
> your dated sources are correct.
RevG
Evidence supports it. Something lacking for the Bible. You are correct,
there are many bibles: Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
> First of all, you don't even name the
> sources (smart, since I would check them out).
RevG
Go to an online encyclopedia and type in the name Tiberius and see when
he started to rule. Then add the number 15 to that and you arrive at 29
CE. So According to Luke, Jesus turned 30 AFTER 29 CE. As such, he could
not have been born in Herod's time.
> Then, what are the
> earliest copies of those texts. Could your sources be innaccurate?
RevG
There are inscriptions dug out of the proper time levels, there is
agreement among the ancient texts and authors to when Tiberius became
Emperor, and when Quinrinius held his first census. If there is
inaccuracies, then show me the data.
> If
> your answer is that they are not inaccurate only because you want them
> to be accurate, then you are guilty of the same source assumption of
> correctness that you impune me with now.
RevG
Here is a question for you:
Did both thieves mock Jesus as Matthew maintains, or did only one as
Luke maintains?
Before holding up the Bible as true, you should first be able to tell me
which is correct.
> Lastly, you are critical of
> the bible for the title given (in english) to Pilate. The bible was not
> written in English. Sorry to burst your bubble.
RevG
The title "procurator" is latin. There were no procurators until the 2nd
century CE.
Rev Gadfly
>
> This is easy and fun to debunk..
>
> Rev Gadfly wrote:
> > K C wrote:
> >
> >>IS 53, PS 22, Hos 6:1-11
> >>
> >>These are just a few. If this is not enough, there are more.
> >
> >
> > RevG
> > First, Psalms is not a prophetic book, didn't you even know that?
> > Second, I don't see these words in any of the above: "the christ should
> > suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day," as for Hos. 6:1,
> > take a closer look at it. Isaiah 53 is not about God, but about the
> > Jews; Ps 22 is repeatedly misrepresented -- its context is this:
> >
>
> My friend, read IS 53:6. It says that all we (either mankind or simply
> Israel) have been led astray and that, therefore, he has put the sins on
> Him for us all. Notice it says, for US ALL. Again, the Him in the
> verse is not part of the US ALL. So, the one that beared and died for
> the sins in Isaiah 53 is not Israel. Israel, according to the very
> words, was part of the source of the sins put on HIM.
RevG
Symbolic Israel puts on the sins of real Israel. This is too easy. IF
you didn't project Jesus on the chapter, you would not find the links
you claim. Israel was punished for the sins of the people of Israel.
>
> >
> > [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:22, "22 Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My
> > firstborn.'"
> > [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:23, "23 Let My son go, that he may worship Me."
> >
> > Now, when did Jesus fit that?
> >
>
> They were symbolicly firstborn as the first nation to follow Him. But
> if you actually meant born of God, it can only be seen one of two ways.
> A. created - we all are created of God through Adam and Eve's
> creation. OR B. God from God, created infinity from infinity. God
> created the man Jesus with His seed and His nature. This was truely,
> His Firstborn among man.
RevG
Provide a quote which says the Messiah is born of God? Only Matthew
claims a virgin birth, there are repeated references in the gospels to
Jesus being called the son of Joseph and when Mary and Joseph found him
in the temple she said: Your father and I have been seeking you [or
something to that effect]. Now, Mary must have known who the father was
now, shouldn't she.
Jesus is not god for several reasons, his inability to answer
intelligently the questions asked him shows him for human, his inability
to quote real scripture shows him to be ignorant, and his vanity shows
him to be a lout.
>
> Psalms 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked
> have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
> 22:17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
> 22:18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. "
RevG
Since this predates the gospels, what evidence do you have that it was
not simply copied and credited to Jesus? An actual reading of Psalms' 22
shows otherwise. Verses 1 has the subject of the Psalms say: 'My God, My
God, why hast thou forsaken me...' How can Jesus, if he is God, forsake
himself? Verse 2, 'O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer;
....' How can Jesus, if he is God, not have his cries answered? Verse 6,
'I am a worm, and not a man ....' Is Jesus a worm? Verse 19, again shows
that the subject of this Psalm has nothing to do with God or the
Messiah, 'hasten to my assistance; ....' How can Jesus, if he is God, be
unable to assist himself?
An honest reading of what is written in Psalm 22 shows that the subject
is neither the messiah nor God. Apparently the Psalm goes back to David
and would have referred to when he fled his enemies and was surrounded
by them.
>
> When has Israel had its hands and feet pierced?
RevG
A proper translation of that into English is: "like lions they maul my
hands and feet." Get yourself a Tanakh and read a proper translation.
Since there is no evidence of a historical Jesus, and a fictional
character's life could be written to incorporate bits and pieces from
this passage and that, it proves nothing.
Here is a question for you:
When has Jesus ever admitted to being a worm? Or will he do that at the
Second Coming, aka. Second Chance to Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies.
> When have they had
> their garments gambled over? It happened in Jesus Christ, born of an
> Israeli mother, son of Israel and son of God...His firstborn among man.
RevG
Then Jesus must be a worm. Now do you have any evidence for a historical
Jesus?
Rev Gadfly
RevG
Well, there are plenty of people involved in the landing and evidence
that can be examined. The box on the other hand lacks a history. I am
certain if a box turned up without a history with the inscription: here
lies the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, you would not take it seriously.
Nonhistorical relics prove nothing.
Rev Gadfly
RevG
Why did you insert 'gospels'? Like I said, he never mentioned any
gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, and doesn't quote them. It is
more likely that what was believed to be said by Jesus [which refutes
his divinity] was more likely included in the written gospels later.
>
> D. "...when a star rose in heaven at the time of his [Jesus'] birth, as
> is recorded in the Memoirs of his apostles, the Magi from Arabia,
> recognizing the sign by this, came and worshipped him." Dial. 106.4
RevG
Where is there mention of "Magi from Arabia" in any gospel?
>
> E. "But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should
> prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed
> what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be
> the Son of God? we will now offer proof, not trusting mere assertions,
> but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before
> these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that
> have happened and are happening just as they were predicted; and this
> will, we think appear even to you the strongest and truest evidence. " 1
> Apology Chapter XXX
RevG
If he was born of 'men" then his father must be Joseph.
>
> F. "But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of
> what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and
> fifty years ago under Cyrenius,
RevG
So 150 years later there is still not mention of any written gospels by
any Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
> and subsequently, in the time of Pontius
> Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as
> though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us
> anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is
> the first-born of God,
RevG
How does he know they weren't taught a falsehood?
> and we have declared above that He is the Word of
> whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably(5)
> are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among
> the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the
> barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias,
> and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount,
> because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before
> Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ,
RevG
How was Socrates hostile to Christ? He died long before Jesus would have
lived. This is a slander. Socrates was far more reasonable than Jesus;
we don't have Socrates flying off the handle when he was questioned.
> and
> slew those who lived reasonably.
RevG
And who did Socrates slay?
> But who, through the power of the Word,
> according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of
> a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and
> rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to
> comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the
> proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to
> the proof of those things which are urgent. " 1 Apology chapter CHAP. XLVI
RevG
Foolishness isn't it. LOL. Justin was a good begger of questions. He is
proof of nothing, he lived after the events and cannot prove they were
not fictions. Which is my point. Since he lied about Socrates, we need
not believe what he says about Jesus. If Jesus was not descended through
the male line of David, he had not rights to the throne of David.
K C
Your evidence for supporting it is the number of people that believe it.
There are millions of believers in Christianity. Follow your own logic.
K C
source for the faith. Now, I show that he, indeed, is and was. He may
not have used the English word gospels but instead Memoirs. I guess I
will concede that point if you are really that picky. They were not
named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in a leather bound book. They were
called memoirs. The rest of your post is just you arguing with Justin
Martyr. Your opinion is fine, but don't rewrite Martyr as you tried.
K C
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> K C wrote:
>
>>Do you even know anything about how the bibles came about? First, you
>>claim the dates in the bible are false due to when someone was in a
>>position (according to your unnamed sources). However, how do we know
>>your dated sources are correct.
>
>
> RevG
> Evidence supports it. Something lacking for the Bible. You are correct,
> there are many bibles: Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
>
Your evidence would be?
>
>>First of all, you don't even name the
>>sources (smart, since I would check them out).
>
>
> RevG
> Go to an online encyclopedia and type in the name Tiberius and see when
> he started to rule. Then add the number 15 to that and you arrive at 29
> CE. So According to Luke, Jesus turned 30 AFTER 29 CE. As such, he could
> not have been born in Herod's time.
>
So, you deny texts from thousands of years ago, but you accept a 20th
century secondary source for your case. Slick.
>
>>Then, what are the
>>earliest copies of those texts. Could your sources be innaccurate?
>
>
> RevG
> There are inscriptions dug out of the proper time levels, there is
> agreement among the ancient texts and authors to when Tiberius became
> Emperor, and when Quinrinius held his first census. If there is
> inaccuracies, then show me the data.
>
How did they date the inscription? They guessed due to the objects
found. That is hardly conclusive.
>
>> If
>>your answer is that they are not inaccurate only because you want them
>>to be accurate, then you are guilty of the same source assumption of
>>correctness that you impune me with now.
>
>
> RevG
> Here is a question for you:
>
> Did both thieves mock Jesus as Matthew maintains, or did only one as
> Luke maintains?
>
Actually, read the text again. I always check out your sources in the
scripture, so you will never mis-quote it to me.
In Matthew, it doesn't say that both mocked him but that they agreed
that He had claimed to be God's son, which is consistent with the other
account.
K C
And the reason to whether is should be believed is up to you?
>
>
>> OK. Cross out the moon landing, wiccan religious history,
>>the existance of a man named Socrates and more.
>
>
> RevG
> None of those things violate the rules of nature; but a miracle man
> rising from the dead does. The more extraordinary the claims, the more
> evidence is necessary. Christians dismiss the Muslim claim that Mohammed
> rode a horse into heaven; why? Lack of proof.
>
You have not been denying the miracles or the claims of Jesus's
divinity. You have been denying the existence of the man.
Libertarius
===>"It's "very probable" the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth,
said French philologist and epigrapher Andre Lemaire,
who was invited by the ossuary's owner to examine it this spring.
He is an expert in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew at the Sorbonne in Paris.
Lemaire dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the
Crucifixion....
He published his findings in the November/December issue of
Biblical Archaeology Review."
"Fraud cannot be ruled out, they said, though the cursive style of
the script and a microscopic examination of the etched surface
seemed to diminish suspicions. An investigation by the Geological
Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches
by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering.
A lack of organic remains associated with the inscription rendered
radiocarbon dating impossible. But the words were carved on a
20-inch-long limestone burial box, similar to ones the Jews used
only in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. More specifically, the
French scholar said, the style of the script and the forms of certain
words placed the date of the inscription to the last decades before the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."
(http://www.american-blue.com/artman/publish/article_845.shtml)
"Although James (Jacob or Ya'akov), Joseph (Yosef) and Jesus (Yeshua)
were common names of that time and place, several scholars noted,
it would have been highly unusual to have them appear in the combination
and kinship order found in the inscription.
Since Lemaire's visit, scholars and scientists have examined and analyzed
the box, seeking to expose it for a fake or otherwise show that it could not
be the ossuary that once held the bones of St. James, founder of the
Christian church of Jerusalem, and, in the words of St. Paul to the Galatians,
"the Lord's brother."
Lemaire was a visiting scholar at Israel's Hebrew University when he met
the ossuary's owner "by chance" at a reception this spring.
The owner, whom Lemaire would not identify, "said he had some
things he wanted to show me," including the ossuary.
The Jewish custom of using ossuaries to collect the remains of the deceased
lasted from about 20 B.C. until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Corpses lay in long caves for a year until flesh and soft tissue fell away,
after which the bones were placed in a box and put in tombs.
Early historians say St. James was stoned to death around 62 or 63 A.D."
(http://www.startribune.com/stories/1556/3378837.html
NOTE: The article incorrectly identifies the reason for that as James teaching
the divinity of Jesus. He did no such thing.)
Libertarius
==========
Roger Pearse
> I've already had to cut off one conversation with someone due to simple
> arguementative foolishness. It might be coming near time to do that to
> him as well.
>
> him. Prov 26:4
Yes, that's certainly the risk.
Of course one must also try to remember that on the internet, everyone
is my neighbour. Which I don't always, of course.
General Montgomery: "As the Lord said to Moses, and in my opinion
rightly, ..."
All the best,
Roger Pearse
JdB
>
[snipt]
>You admit the possibility here, and take note that I never said it was a
>source from Jesus's lifetime. By the way, using your standard, we
>shouldn't trust things Kennedy is supposed to have said as we would be
>relying on sources after Kennedy was gone.
>
So you're claiming not one of Keneedy's contemporaries ever recorded
anything he sdaid?
K C
I'm sure they did. Just as the gospels do of Christ.
K C
Rev Gadfly wrote:
> K C wrote:
>
>>This is easy and fun to debunk..
>>
>>Rev Gadfly wrote:
>>
>>>K C wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>IS 53, PS 22, Hos 6:1-11
>>>>
>>>>These are just a few. If this is not enough, there are more.
>>>
>>>
>>>RevG
>>>First, Psalms is not a prophetic book, didn't you even know that?
>>>Second, I don't see these words in any of the above: "the christ should
>>>suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day," as for Hos. 6:1,
>>>take a closer look at it. Isaiah 53 is not about God, but about the
>>>Jews; Ps 22 is repeatedly misrepresented -- its context is this:
>>>
>>
>>My friend, read IS 53:6. It says that all we (either mankind or simply
>>Israel) have been led astray and that, therefore, he has put the sins on
>>Him for us all. Notice it says, for US ALL. Again, the Him in the
>>verse is not part of the US ALL. So, the one that beared and died for
>>the sins in Isaiah 53 is not Israel. Israel, according to the very
>>words, was part of the source of the sins put on HIM.
>
>
> RevG
> Symbolic Israel puts on the sins of real Israel. This is too easy. IF
> you didn't project Jesus on the chapter, you would not find the links
> you claim. Israel was punished for the sins of the people of Israel.
>
That's a reach. Your saying it is easier to believe a symbolic Israel
(who is not part of "us all" put on the sins of Israel and then
symbolicly died. Yet, it was fulfilled in Jesus. Do you just want
complexity?
>
>> >
>> > [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:22, "22 Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My
>> > firstborn.'"
>> > [Tanakh JPS] Exodus. 4:23, "23 Let My son go, that he may worship Me."
>> >
>> > Now, when did Jesus fit that?
>> >
>>
>>They were symbolicly firstborn as the first nation to follow Him. But
>>if you actually meant born of God, it can only be seen one of two ways.
>> A. created - we all are created of God through Adam and Eve's
>>creation. OR B. God from God, created infinity from infinity. God
>>created the man Jesus with His seed and His nature. This was truely,
>>His Firstborn among man.
>
>
> RevG
> Provide a quote which says the Messiah is born of God? Only Matthew
> claims a virgin birth, there are repeated references in the gospels to
> Jesus being called the son of Joseph and when Mary and Joseph found him
> in the temple she said: Your father and I have been seeking you [or
> something to that effect]. Now, Mary must have known who the father was
> now, shouldn't she.
>
> Jesus is not god for several reasons, his inability to answer
> intelligently the questions asked him shows him for human, his inability
> to quote real scripture shows him to be ignorant, and his vanity shows
> him to be a lout.
>
Well, he was killed for claiming to be God, according to the jews. So,
did the jews falsely charge a man or what?
>
>>Psalms 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked
>>have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
>> 22:17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
>> 22:18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. "
>
>
> RevG
> Since this predates the gospels, what evidence do you have that it was
> not simply copied and credited to Jesus? An actual reading of Psalms' 22
> shows otherwise. Verses 1 has the subject of the Psalms say: 'My God, My
> God, why hast thou forsaken me...' How can Jesus, if he is God, forsake
> himself? Verse 2, 'O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer;
> ....' How can Jesus, if he is God, not have his cries answered? Verse 6,
> 'I am a worm, and not a man ....' Is Jesus a worm? Verse 19, again shows
> that the subject of this Psalm has nothing to do with God or the
> Messiah, 'hasten to my assistance; ....' How can Jesus, if he is God, be
> unable to assist himself?
>
A more interesting question is how something that predates the Gospels
quotes verbatim things said and done to and by him on that day. It's
called prophecy.
> An honest reading of what is written in Psalm 22 shows that the subject
> is neither the messiah nor God. Apparently the Psalm goes back to David
> and would have referred to when he fled his enemies and was surrounded
> by them.
>
>
>>When has Israel had its hands and feet pierced?
>
>
> RevG
> A proper translation of that into English is: "like lions they maul my
> hands and feet." Get yourself a Tanakh and read a proper translation.
> Since there is no evidence of a historical Jesus, and a fictional
> character's life could be written to incorporate bits and pieces from
> this passage and that, it proves nothing.
>
> Here is a question for you:
>
I know the original language, and you are wrong. Your translation is
not accurate to the text.
Michael Painter
The gospels are at best second hand renderings of what "may" have been
written down before they were recoded in the gospel.
The major problem with that is that currently Q is that singular document.
That means that one single document was used and from it came two or more.
That is called historical fiction.
Harry Leopold
15:39:
And many of us were there when he said them.
--
Harry F. Leopold
Prints of Darkness
aa #2076
"The line separating painfully bad analogies from weirdly good ones is as
thin as a soup made from the shadow of a chicken that was starved to death."
- Alydar2
Harry Leopold
However unlike the "gospels" we have many sources stating what Kennedy said,
by many different people in very different parts of the world. Many of those
by people who have written other articles, people who also have verifiable
existence. Sort of like Robert Ingersol, we have many MANY statements by
him, his personal writings, the writings of those who knew him (and these
people can be shown to have actually existed, with real histories),
newspaper reports both blasting him and praising him, from many parts of the
world.
In the case of the bible however, we have unknown writers, with no known
history, basically re-writing some story written by an unknown writer or
writers. A story that does not match reality, not not really match known
facts by known historians who should have known of this Jesus of yours, or
statements added later to a very few histories by these historians,
statements that do not show up in earlier versions of their writings.
Quite a different set of facts from real historical individuals and what
they had to say.
--
Harry F. Leopold
Prints of Darkness
aa #2076
"Your god wears fuzzy pink bunny slippers."
K C
Talk about fiction... Do you even know what Q is? A bunch of people got
together and voted (yes voted) about what they wanted in the bible. The
result was the Q theory.
Louis Kuhelj
> > If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
> > the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
> > look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
> > presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
>
> You should probably work backwards to find what you want.
> There was no NT until about the 3rd century CE. Study the council of Nicea
> to find out how the final decision was made as to what went into the book.
> Note that it was changed again about 1500 years later when the protestants
> finally officially removed some of the books that were in that original
> version.
>
> Work back from there and you will find the closer you get to that first
> century, the more versions of christianity there were. There were also a lot
> more "gospels" and a lot more letters.
> But there was no "bible"
Why make a distinction if the bible was assembled from those documents?
Louis Kuhelj
> >
> > RevG
> > No, I am saying there is no need for a historical person to have a
> > religion based on him; for example, Siva is worshipped by millions, yet
> > there is no evidence for a historical Siva, or Mithra, or Heracles, ....
> >
> > From a biblical point of view, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke used
> > Mark as a guide, where Mark goes they go, but fail to agree on details,
> > where Mark does not go, they deviate greatly. Josephus had his work
> > Antiquity of the Jews interpolated by Christians trying to provide a
> > nonChristian source for a historical Jesus.
> >
> > peace
> >
> > Rev Peter
>
> So you are trying to say, that no matter when the Marc gospel was
> written, Paul had no knowledge of it, so how could Josephus?
> So you propose Josephus to be contaminated by later Christian
> rendering?
> Could be.
>
> Guess we weill never know who thought up what part of the gospel, and
> when.
Those are insignificant questions when compared to "Why?"
> Still, without evidence to the contrary, I will suppose that in places
> where the Gospel, actually quotes Jesus, it has trying to do so
> accurately.
> I also assume, without evidence to the contrary, that a historical
> person was the bases for these stories.
>
> Appearantly he didn't mean a great deal to the "civilized" (roman)
> world until much later. But so what.
> Alt. Atheism hardly ever gets mentioned on CNN, does it?
>
> Think for yourself
> Peter van Velzen Oktober 2002
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands
Louis Kuhelj
> Peter van Velzen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > RevG
> > > No, I am saying there is no need for a historical person to have a
> > > religion based on him; for example, Siva is worshipped by millions, yet
> > > there is no evidence for a historical Siva, or Mithra, or Heracles, ....
> > >
> > > From a biblical point of view, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke used
> > > Mark as a guide, where Mark goes they go, but fail to agree on details,
> > > where Mark does not go, they deviate greatly. Josephus had his work
> > > Antiquity of the Jews interpolated by Christians trying to provide a
> > > nonChristian source for a historical Jesus.
> > >
> > > peace
> > >
> > > Rev Peter
> >
> > So you are trying to say, that no matter when the Marc gospel was
> > written, Paul had no knowledge of it, so how could Josephus?
> > So you propose Josephus to be contaminated by later Christian
> > rendering?
> > Could be.
>
> According to what I read, Paul was the first NT writer, therefore, the
> gospel of Mark did not exist prior to his writings. This makes sense,
> Paul remarks: "we don't know how to pray", so obviously the "lord's
> prayer" was not around in his time.
>
> >
> > Guess we weill never know who thought up what part of the gospel, and
> > when.
> > where the Gospel, actually quotes Jesus, it has trying to do so
> > accurately.
> > I also assume, without evidence to the contrary, that a historical
> > person was the bases for these stories.
>
> Matthew places Jesus' birth 10 years prior to Luke. That is historical.
>
> >
> > Appearantly he didn't mean a great deal to the "civilized" (roman)
> > world until much later. But so what.
> > Alt. Atheism hardly ever gets mentioned on CNN, does it?
>
> I am not an Atheist. I am unaware of any Christian ng being mentioned
> either.
>
> peace
If you don't mind me asking, if you're not an Atheist, what do you call yourself?
Louis Kuhelj
Bravo!!!! Way to point out ERROR!!!!!!
Uniacke
wanted in the OT and a bunch of people got together and voted what they
wanted in the NT. Does that surprise you? The result is what we read today
as the Tanach and what we know as the New Testament. Some believe it's
religious fiction, some don't. One thing is obvious, the authors of the OT
and those of the NT had no intention of writing a history book. They
obviously were religious people. Right, the "Q" document is a theory.
K C
The only difference is the subjective response of the viewer.
Michael Painter
If true it would support my argument that the gospels were at best second
hand writings and were historical fiction. There would be no need for more
than one.
However that's not what Q is and it still supports my idea.
It's really not hard to find references about it.
Harry Leopold
I see, so you are a witless moron without the ability to think. Thank you
for saving me the time responding to you. If that is the only difference you
see you are blind to reality.
--
Harry F. Leopold
Prints of Darkness
aa #2076
"The line separating painfully bad analogies from weirdly good ones is as
K C
I studied about Q in college. Where did you read of it?
JdB
Didn't Constantine get a bunch of Bishops together who voted on what
they wanted in the bible? I guess that makes the bible fiction.....
JdB
>Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>him. Prov 26:4
Quoting Scripture
This lady surprised a burglar in her kitchen. He was all loaded down
with the things he was going to steal. She had no weapon and was all
alone.
The only thing that she could think to do was quote scripture. So, she
holds up a hand and says: "ACTS 2:38!!!"
The burglar quakes in fear and then freezes to the point that she is
able to get to the phone and call 911 for the cops.
When the cops arrive, the burglar is still frozen in place. They are
very much surprised that a woman alone with no weapon could do this.
One of them asked the lady: "How did you do this?"
The woman replied: "I quoted scripture."
The cop turned the burglar: "What was it about the scripture that had
such an effect on you?"
The burglar replied: "Scripture! What damn scripture? I thought she
said she had an axe and two 38's."
JdB
>If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
>the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
>look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
>presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
>
"Towards the end of the second century Porphyry wrote fifteen books
Against the Christians."
"The Holy Scriptures of the Christians was the main object of
Porphyry’s attack"
"Porphyry may be called the father of Bible criticism."
"Porphyry criticized the credibility of apostolic writings and taught
his readers to look behind the text for “how it really happened”. He
didn’t like the account of the annatural death of Ananias and Saffira
in the book of Acts, chapter five. It was rather the apostle Peter
himself, who had killed those two, because he wanted all their money
for the Church (Apokritikos II.21, Fougart 1876:101)."
"Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote his twelfth book. He
didn’t believe that the one who’s name it bears, wrote it. No,
someone else, who was in Judea at the times of Antiochus Epiphanes,
did it. Daniel could never have spoken about the future things.
Consequently, everything said concerning Antiochus should just contain
a description of true history."
JdB
>If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
>the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
>look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
>presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
>
Greekphilosopher Celus about 178 CE
"This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all
walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the
blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great
curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of
revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret,
subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish
upon the human race..."
JdB
>If the bible was false information, quote me any one objection to it in
>the first centuries...any one. At least tell me a source that I may
>look it up if ANY ONE source shows anyone objecting to the facts
>presented in the gospels and letters circulating at the time.
>
I've posted several. Now what do you have to say?
Michael Painter
We are not talking about where Q it was learned, we are talking about when
the gospels were written and the source of the information.
Your idea of what Q is does not support your statement about the validity of
the gospels as other then historical fiction.
>
Michael Painter
"JdB" <jdb999inv...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dbfcb45....@news1.on.sympatico.ca... <snip>
> >
> >Talk about fiction... Do you even know what Q is? A bunch of people got
> >together and voted (yes voted) about what they wanted in the bible.
> >The result was the Q theory.
> >
> Didn't Constantine get a bunch of Bishops together who voted on what
> they wanted in the bible? I guess that makes the bible fiction.....
>
ways but can find nothing that seems definitive to me.
It would not make the bible fiction per se. A secular book could be formed
in this manner with people picking the best stories that covered the
history.\
Contradictions etc would not be a problem because we know that not
everybody sees and records things the same way.
The lineage of christ would be no real problem. Maybe somebody got left out
or they are tracing through the father in one and the mother in the other,
no big deal.
But this is supposed to be divinely inspired by a god who makes no mistakes.
Human error can't be allowed to enter because if there is one there may be
two or two hundred thousand.
Hawke
Excellent! This would make an excellent plot for a cartoon....hmmmmm<G>
Hawke
Peter van Velzen
> >
> > Guess we weill never know who thought up what part of the gospel, and
> > when.
>
> Those are insignificant questions when compared to "Why?"
>
The why is very well known I would say.
The author wanted people to love their neighbour :)
Whether or not this was the best way to achief this goal,
is - of course - open for debate.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen Oktober 2002
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands