Yes they do!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by yosi
They just don't believe he was the messiah....
Printable View
Yes they do!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by yosi
They just don't believe he was the messiah....
Don't go thinking you've won. I'm just sick of repeating myself and receiving the same response. If you knew anything about debate, trying to carry one with somebody who admits you have a point, but isn't concerned enough to offer a rebuttal leads to a stalemate or debate loop. I'd like to see it come to a stalemate, but you're far too busy playing the nerd who has to have the last word and needs to be right; even if it means annoying other people in the process. Get over yourself, man. Otherwise, I'm done with this conversation because you've made it more than apparent that you just want to bicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
LOL...............I like you Evon. Really I do, although I'm not prepared to spend my day on a message board providing you with a list of reading material gained over my lifetime starting from the age of 5. What I would hope though is that our debate here inspires you keep reading and asking questions. Kelly did mention 'Zeitgest' which is a decent starter but if only because it touches on a multitude of areas worthy of investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
I would also ask of you - if you ever stumble upon it - to send me excerpts from historical documents/references done around the 'time of Jesus' that reference his name, family, exploits etc. Mind you I'm not asking for you to send me the names of people who believe there are such references, I'm asking you to send the names of the actual documents or monuments and where they can be found.
Only 3 pages to go... wen can make it to 100 without even another topic change, this one is good for at least 10 pages... :D
All edits are stored, any moderator can come and confirm that the post wasn't edited. Admit that you quickly read the post and instead of thinking about it made some asinine comment like, "depends on your definition of God." Trolling? You didn't call me out on anything, the post wasn't edited, I have no reason to lie, your ego lead you here man.Quote:
Don't be a complete tool. You know that your original post was only one sentence long.
That little indication of an edit does not show up if you edit your post immediately after making it. I edit a lot of my posts and I am completely aware of how this works.
So stop trolling and suck it up for once. I caught you on your bullshit.
Lol, so after physical intimidation didn't work with the 6'4" comment, I mean why would it, this is the internet, and now you're trying to tell me I'm a nerd? Haha, why because I'm smarter than you, because saying fuck you didn't get a rise out of me it just further emphasized my point on how shallow your views are? Yes, I have won, because I'm not you. Otherwise you're done with this conversation? Hahaha, you're done with me now? Hahaha, so feminine.Quote:
Don't go thinking you've won. I'm just sick of repeating myself and receiving the same response. If you knew anything about debate, trying to carry one with somebody who admits you have a point, but isn't concerned enough to offer a rebuttal leads to a stalemate or debate loop. I'd like to see it come to a stalemate, but you're far too busy playing the nerd who has to have the last word and needs to be right; even if it means annoying other people in the process. Get over yourself, man. Otherwise, I'm done with this conversation because you've made it more than apparent that you just want to bicker.
Jesus! The Entire New Testament is written by those who knew Jesus, or carried on the Apostle's writings. Read a book,people!!!
What did we decide about Domino? Does she deserve $1,000/hour??
You dumb ass. I wasn't trying to intimidate you, and you know it. Quit trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
Haha. I think it's pretty obvious from the small amount of your comments on this forum what you're all about...
Even with the edit, you are saying absolutely nothing to me! My post was a quotation from Einstein followed by me asserting that he was not a Christian.
What is there to argue with from that?
Setting a price on services isn't about what you deserve, it's about what you can get, if you're a broke ass and can't spend $1,000 on some fun then work on making more money. So annoying to see people asking others to lower their standards because you're too poor to pay for entertainment.Quote:
Jesus! The Entire New Testament is written by those who knew Jesus, or carried on the Apostle's writings. Read a book,people!!!
What did we decide about Domino? Does she deserve $1,000/hour??
I really don't see any other reason that you would mention you're 6'4"? I mean, you couldn't of seriously thought that was a witty remark, could you of?Quote:
You dumb ass. I wasn't trying to intimidate you, and you know it. Quit trolling.
Ahhh, the first sign of back pedaling. You said, "It depends on your definition of God.", in my post I already addressed the definition of how Einstein viewed God, you simply didn't read it because your ego was quick to make the point of, "DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION". You're just mad that you overlooked this detail in my post and are now trying to accuse me of editing my post. Why would I edit my post, just so that I can what, make you feel stupid? I don't need to edit a post to make you feel stupid, people around you everyday make you feel stupid. There is nothing to argue about I just thought it was cute you would accuse me of editing a post to make you look bad, lol. Guy, I don't care that much.Quote:
Haha. I think it's pretty obvious from the small amount of your comments on this forum what you're all about...
Even with the edit, you are saying absolutely nothing to me! My post was a quotation from Einstein followed by me asserting that he was not a Christian.
What is there to argue with from that?
EDIT: Edited immediately after making the post to see if it puts an edited mark on the bottom.
EDIT#2: Seems there is a small gap to edit a post without the marker, too bad I still didn't edit it, lol.
Well I have always been taught to investigate as oppose to disagreeing with something blindly...Quote:
Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream
It does not take a genius to read for example Mary Magdalen who is a historic figure mention Jesus's life with her's, and then for scholars, and historians to prove that indeed she did exist. And this Jesus she mentioned in her life had also been involved with other prophets, and certain historical events int he bible proven true by scholars and Historians...
So the only question you have to answer is who is this person they mention or called jesus?
Obviously it's one answer.... It Jesus...
Saying he does not exist doe snot add up to the historic evidence many both religious and non religious people provided, There not been a strong argument that he didn't exist.
I gave you names so you can look up the documents yourself... Here is a starter
Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
I never said a reason for why you edited your post. I don't care what your reasons were. All I said was that my response was made before I read your edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
But as I said before:
So talking about overlooking details, why is it you ignored this whole part of my last post? Is it because that couldn't be milked for extra BS?Quote:
Even with the edit, you are saying absolutely nothing to me! My post was a quotation from Einstein followed by me asserting that he was not a Christian.
If you're not a troll, you're a douche. And both are equally tedious and predictable.
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
I posted that as a thought point to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
Heres some more stuff on it.
I've just ordered the book off Amazon
I instinctively agree with the hypothesis and I posted this on another board last year. A friend posted this responce:
I hope you all appreciate the way I don't let severe and fundamental scientific reservations,Quote:
f3lix_ said:
"They've [Boston University] gotten a lot of emails regarding Dr. Ogas. He is no longer in any way affiliated with Boston University, except as a recent graduate. They have asked him to stop using his official Boston University email address in connection with this project, or his website. He is officially on his own, and this project is NOT IRB APPROVED.
That is the official status as stated by the Boston University IRB office.
The problem with this is threefold:
1. The researcher has no expertise in the area he is researching, nor has he recruited anyone to give him guidance.
2. The researcher has substantial profit motivation to produce work in this area (book contract with Penguin) which may lead to unethical conduct/a tendency to misrepresent his results.
3. The research is in no way overseen by any external body which can examine it for potential unethical conduct. "
Source
He seems a very shady guy, to say the least. Though I suppose some here won't be troubled that Boston University had to take action to actively distance themselves from him, and insist he stop implying professional association with them.
Don't kid yourselves that this is in any way comparable to proper peer-reviewed research, it's just basic pop-psychology, which unfortunately loses any credibility it might have otherwise had-- for pretending to be far more than it is.
Credible, trustworthy academics, don't need to imply non-existent professional associations and endorsements. That's the behaviour of a fraud.
get in the way of me putting up a good post. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...c/rolleyes.gif
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.
As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.
FAKES, FRAUDS, AND FICTIONS
Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person can inherit a dependence on any information that supports a belief and that includes fraudulent stories, rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without the need to check sources, or to investigate the reliability of the information. Although hundreds of fraudulent claims exist for the artifacts of Jesus, I will present only three examples which seem to have a life of their own and have spread through the religious community and especially on internet discussion groups.
The Shroud of Turin
Many faithful people believe the shroud represents the actual burial cloth of Jesus where they claim the image on the cloth represents an actual 'photographic' image left behind by the crucified body.
The first mention of the shroud comes from a treatise (written or dictated) by Geoffroi de Charny in 1356 and who claims to have owned the cloth (see The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi De Charny). Later, in the 16th century, it suddenly appeared in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. (Note that thousands of claimed Jesus relics appeared in cathedrals throughout Europe, including the wood from the cross, chalices, blood of Jesus, etc. These artifacts proved popular and served as a prosperous commercial device which filled the money coffers of the churches.) [See The Family Jewels for some examples.]
Sadly, many people of faith believe that there actually exists scientific evidence to support their beliefs in the shroud's authenticity. Considering how the Shroud's apologists use the words, "science," "fact," and "authentic," without actual scientific justification, and even include pseudo-scientists (without mentioning the 'pseudo') to testify to their conclusions, it should not come to any surprise why a faithful person would not question their information or their motives. Television specials have also appeared that purport the authenticity of the shroud. Science, however, does not operate though television specials who have a commercial interest and have no qualms about deceiving the public.
Experts around the world consider the 14-foot-long linen sheet, which has remained in a cathedral in Turin since 1578, a forgery because of carbon-dating tests performed in 1988. Three different independent radiocarbon dating laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and the University of Arizona yielded a date range of 1260-1390 C.E. (consistent with the time period of Charny's claimed ownership). Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem calls the shroud indisputably a fake. "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." The shroud actually depicts a man whose front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and arms would indicate that he had the affliction of gigantism if he actually lived. (Also read Joe Nickell's, Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings)
Walter C. McCrone, et al, (see Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin) discovered red ochre (a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages) on the cloth which formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, used to represent blood. The actual scientific findings reveal the shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image. Revealingly, no Biblical scholar or scientist (with any credibility), cites the shroud of Turin as evidence for a historical Jesus.
The Burial box of James
Even many credible theologians bought this fraud, hook-line-and-sinker. The Nov./Dec. 2002, issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine announced a "world exclusive!" article about evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they found the actual ossuary of "James, Brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exploded on the news and appeared widely on television and newspapers around the world.
Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of Jesus yet found." Since they claimed the inscribing on the box occurred around 70 C.E., that agrees with everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence exists for Jesus). Even if the box script proved authentic, it would not provide evidence for Jesus simply because no one knew who wrote the script or why. It would only show the first indirect mention of a Jesus and it could not serve as contemporary evidence simply because it didn't come into existence until long after the alleged death of Jesus.
The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particularly embarrassing for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed them without question. Just a few months later, archaeologists determined the inscription as a forgery (and an obvious one at that) and they found the perpetrator and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A fake? James Ossuary dealer arrested, suspected of forgery).
Regrettably, the news about the fraud never matched the euphoria of the numerous stories of the find and many people today still believe the story as true.
Letters of Pontius Pilate
This would appear hilarious if not for the tragic results that can occur from believing in fiction: many faithful (especially on the internet) have a strong belief that Pontius Pilate actually wrote letters to Seneca in Rome where he mentions Jesus and his reported healing miracles.
Considering the lack of investigational temper of the religious mind, it might prove interesting to the critical reader that the main source for the letters of Pilate come from W. P. Crozier's 1928 book titled, "Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome." The book cites Crozier as the editor as if he represented a scholar who edited Pilate's letters. Well, from the title, it certainly seems to indicate that Pilate wrote some letters doesn't it? However, unbeknownst or ignored by the uncritical faithful, this book represents Crozier's first novel, a fictionalized account of what he thought Pilate would have written.
During the first publication, no one believed this novel represented fact and reviews of the day reveal it as a work of fiction.
Crozier, a newspaper editor, went to Oxford University and retained an interest in Latin, Greek and the Bible. He wrote this novel as if it represented the actual letters of Pilate. Of course no scholar would cite this as evidence because no letters exist of Pilate to Seneca, and Seneca never mentions Jesus in any of his writings.
The belief in Pilate's letters represents one of the more amusing fad beliefs in evidential Jesus, however, it also reveals just how myths, fakes, and fictions can leak into religious thought. Hundreds of years from now, Crozier's fictionalized account may very well end up just as 'reliable' as the gospels
I can keep going - there is no factual proof
Oh, more on men who Pay-date Ts escorts.
I just said to my man that all the guys who visit me, identify as straight.
His response: "There's only one thing straight about your clients and it pokes out of their trousers!"
I replied: "So where does that put you, sweety?" http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/dry.gif
"Oh, ...well there is that." http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...sic/unsure.gif
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
This was also evidence and supported the bible....
How does two different things, in two different times come to become one big puzzle?
The romans hated Jesus and Christians... So did Jews...
If they were to simply cut out Jesus in History they would have never documented it...
All documents come from Very historic philosophers, and non christians alike, so there no bias...
Even the jews had no choice to believe in his existence, because there are many supportive evidence...
Jesus existed... And if you have to discredit any historians, philosophy, etc to Support your non belief then you might as well cut out had of the history in that region as well... Which by the way is still thought in public schools why? Because it append, and it existed.
Surely one of his many followers would of? Something, anything...Plenty of stuff on Greek GodsQuote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
No sweetheart there is usually circumstantial proof of other historical figures and facts
There is just hereasy when it comes to Jesus
WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?
What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!
If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).
So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?
Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.
Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?
Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.
To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.
HISTORICAL SCHOLARS
Many problems occur with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards supporting a "real" Jesus.
In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game. They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.
In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) responded with:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.
CITING GEOGRAPHY, AND KNOWN HISTORICAL FIGURES AS "EVIDENCE"
Although the New Testament mentions various cities, geological sites, kings and people that existed or lived during the alleged life of Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fiction that include recognizable locations, and make mention of actual people.
Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. The authors of mythical stories, fictions, and novels almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for their stories. The authors of the Greek tragedies not only put their stories in plausible settings as happening in the real world but their supernatural characters took on the desires, flaws and failures of mortal human beings. Consider that fictions such as King Kong, Superman, and Star Trek include recognizable cities, planets, and landmarks, with their protagonists and antagonists miming human emotions.
Likewise, just because the Gospels mention cities and locations in Judea, and known historical people, with Jesus behaving like an actual human being (with the added dimension of supernatural curses, miracles, etc.) but this says nothing about the actuality of the characters portrayed in the stories. However, when a story uses impossible historical locations, or geographical errors, we may question the authority of the claims.
For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into an exceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there exists no spot on the spheroid earth to view "all the kingdoms," we know that the Bible errs here.
John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.
John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agree that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.
No one has evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a list of cities in Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus. If a city named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as established history. Many historians do not agree with this of course. Some think Nazareth existed, some don't think it existed, and some remain skeptical, but the fact that historians still debate it should tell you that that we should not use this uncertainly as a certainty. Moreover, some scholars think it as a moot point because they believe "Nazareth" refers to a Christian movement, not a city. For one example, Acts 24:5 refers to a sect of the Nazarenes. The Gospel writers then might have confused the term to mean the city (which by the time they wrote the gospels, a city did exist with that name). We have a lot of educated guesses by scholars, but no certainity.
Many more kinds of errors and uncertainties like this appear in the New Testament. And although one cannot use these as evidence against a historical Jesus, we can certainly question the reliability of the texts. If the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science, and contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur any in area.
If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should also have some historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and people. But just the opposite proves the case. The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or years after, ever records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself.
CONCLUSION
Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.
Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.
Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.
So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.
It's kinda like saying prove me Julius Cesar lived and don't use roman evidence...
The thing about Jesus is the evidence come from all part of that region...
It is documented, He was put in place of historic people, who have placed him under their life...
So that's kinda discrediting a life of a historian proven fact... If jesus didn't exist, then they all didn't exist...
The man that was believed to be jesus was buried in a tomb, documented and proven also...
And it was also documented that his body was stolen in realistic point of view, or risen from the dead in religious point of view..
The fact that history documented his body was no longer there, matched what the roman, christians, Jews all documented...
Not every historical figures have a birth date, some even unknown but have been proven famous historic figures...
You also cannot be ignorant enough to ignore many documented facts, that is better proof than not believing it just because you don't believe in a god.
Before the Big Bang, the Universe was the size of a softball. Although it was finite, it had no edges. It is written.
Again what proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
It is well documented that Jesus from Jerusalem was a teacher and lead people.Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
They had found a tomb of bones that in scripted "James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus...
it was documented that Joseph was the father of Jesus and after Jesus Mary and Joseph had other children after...
James was thought to be the half brother of Jesus.
Again it's not like you can prove he does not exist, you can only discredit. But that does not mean the documents are false.
I have more reasons to believe he existed with evidence and documents given as oppose to saying it's a fairy tale...
Then that means everyone in the bible an every event is a fairytale, which by the way is proven to be not true since many people and events in the bible actually did happen according to historians and have proven it. And many famous philosophers and Historians match the events of the documented life of Jesus...
You can't have every physical proof, every picture. If someone was to document the 911 thousands of years after the world would completely change... There won't be hard physical evidence, you only have the documents to go by... And it is their job to find other documents to match what the other documents say...
And if they have over thousand of people documenting the 911, obviously something happened...
Yes,100% I can:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
Jesus was a black man
No Jesus was Batman
No, no, no, no, not at all
That was Bruce Wayne
Kelly's hero's, by Black Grape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHvcSjGpIuY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler___Durden
If god is a DJ then life is a dance floor....
I mean you can come back and forth about trying to discredit documents...
It is said only very little Historians question His existence, But it's not like they came up with any evidence that Jesus didn't exist either...
If they can prove that thousands of those Roman, Jews, Christian, Asia minor people, Even many of Jesus's enemies documents were are false and lies then you have a good case.
However everything that's been brought to the table are just facts and evidence that are being discredited with no valid reason...
By the evidence I gather, Jesus was a human who live at one time... Was he the messiah, or risen from the dead? Well that's where I can question it...
But documents when gathered wisely are facts in itself...
WOW
Geniuses(sarcasm)
It was a question, it wasn't a statement, why are you telling me you didn't give a reason? There was no edit, that is the point, your ego is hurt.Quote:
I never said a reason for why you edited your post. I don't care what your reasons were. All I said was that my response was made before I read your edit.
I didn't ignore the last part of your post, I addressed it. I never disagreed with that statement, just pointed out that you're a fucking moron for thinking I would edit a post and then go through all this just to what, make no point at all? It should be sinking in now why me editing the post for no gain, and even for no real trolling, is irrational. Now, since you are unable to accept the fact that I didn't edit my post, this just let's me know that you are the douche, not myself, and you are the troll, so I shall call you douche troll.Quote:
So talking about overlooking details, why is it you ignored this whole part of my last post? Is it because that couldn't be milked for extra BS?
If you're not a troll, you're a douche. And both are equally tedious and predictable.
Man, I really wish I could of replied to that guy, how shallow of a thinker. Does he really expect all ideas to just pop out of your head in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Gravity, originated with a single moment of curiosity, what brings the apple to the ground? I think the work this guy is doing is simply asking questions, posing ideas, and gathering information so that further investigation can take place. Ugh, this is my problem with the science community they are so limited in their scope of the world.Quote:
I hope you all appreciate the way I don't let severe and fundamental scientific reservations,
get in the way of me putting up a good post.
This just blows my mind that he would even say that, it reminds me of the older generations back in the 60's and 70's who criticized the youth for listening to rock music, and now that same younger generation is now criticizing the youth for things like radicalism with sex and music. People will never be able to see the big picture I feel!Quote:
Oh, more on men who Pay-date Ts escorts.
I just said to my man that all the guys who visit me, identify as straight.
His response: "There's only one thing straight about your clients and it pokes out of their trousers!"
I replied: "So where does that put you, sweety?"
"Oh, ...well there is that."
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...asic/smile.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
Ah yes, Einstein! Wasn't he also the one who said "it's all relative"? Just imagine, Evon, if the Spanish would not have conquered the Philippines many years ago, you may not even have heard of this man called Jesus. And look at you now!
Well, he may well have existed once. But please don't tell us you also have tons of evidence on the way he was conceived!
Well, I believe my points are from realistic point of view... I am not claiming supernatural... But of r a man to exist simply in historical events with documented facts is realistic...Quote:
Originally Posted by catherinefan
Jesus is believed by many to exist not just christians.
Many Fillipinos are buddhist, and muslims... So huh?
Im spanish, Fillipino/ English, with Greek descent... would have heard of jesus one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvonRose
Not that many. The Philippines is known to be 98% Roman Catholic!
But I'm not trying to take away your belief, Evon. I was a member of the Catholic church myself once. Still am as a matter of fact. Must remember to sign out soon.
It's 80% percent with with half don't even practice properly...Quote:
Originally Posted by catherinefan
And why assume I am part of the Roman Catholic?
I am protestant consisting only 2.8 percent, I am Eurasian...
The perception of me as female in the man's... I dunno what you want to call it... "gend-ar"? He perceives me as female, and females who look like me give him a boner. Ok? So his "gend-ar" and libido concur that I am hot punani. And that's what his wiener is going on. That's the best I can explain it. Gay men don't want to fuck me, as far as I know. I've hung out with hundreds of gay men, and we don't have that sexual spark. I wouldn't want that spark to be there anyway if it's not meant to be anyway. I had a BF before I went fulltime. He accepted me as a very fem queer. He identified as being a gay man, himself. But when I told him I was taking hormones, getting tits eventually, changing my name to the name my mom had picked out for me had I been born a girl, and basically flushing my history as a "male" down the toilet, he dumped me. He preferred that I remain a peacock of a faggot. And I was a peacock. lol I had a liberty spike mohawk over a foot tall, I wore makeup all the time, wore skirts, heels, got my nails done, etc. I was a lot like what you see in the femme boy threads on here. I was "genderfuct".But I had no implants. I went by my male name. I was a gay boy, and I stuck out like a sore thumb. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
And Klinefelter's, which I've been told I probably have, is generally treatable by just being yourself. lol In my case, it's being a female. But there's nothing I can do about having XXY chromosomes. But I plan on getting the karyotype test eventually and finding out once and for all. Not that it would change much tho'.
I hate to throw a wrench into your theory, but men can get their dicks hard to fuck goats, dogs, dolphins, and even men when they themselves aren't homosexual. There is a lot we don't know about the mechanisms of the brain and to argue about gender to me is really a moot point, most tgirls on here want to be called women, but they unfortunately don't fit into that box. There is a check list in everyone's mind and you might hit 9 of 10 check marks, but unless you hit all 10 you're not admitted. This is why I liked that another tgirl on here suggested when people clock her in public, she acknowledges that yes, I am a tgirl, no I am not a genetic girl. This in my opinion is the first step in changing how accepted tgirls are in the mainstream, the sad fact though is that the gay community think they are somehow better, and the lesbian community, oh shit, don't get me started. It is an underlying issue in our society that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality, or who you are, it is a bigger idea than that, the idea that human beings are still so cruel to each other.Quote:
The perception of me as female in the man's... I dunno what you want to call it... "gend-ar"? He perceives me as female, and females who look like me give him a boner. Ok? So his "gend-ar" and libido concur that I am hot punani. And that's what his wiener is going on. That's the best I can explain it. Gay men don't want to fuck me, as far as I know. I've hung out with hundreds of gay men, and we don't have that sexual spark. I wouldn't want that spark to be there anyway if it's not meant to be anyway. I had a BF before I went fulltime. He accepted me as a very fem queer. He identified as being a gay man, himself. But when I told him I was taking hormones, getting tits eventually, changing my name to the name my mom had picked out for me had I been born a girl, and basically flushing my history as a "male" down the toilet, he dumped me. He preferred that I remain a peacock of a faggot. And I was a peacock. lol I had a liberty spike mohawk over a foot tall, I wore makeup all the time, wore skirts, heels, got my nails done, etc. I was a lot like what you see in the femme boy threads on here. I was "genderfuct".But I had no implants. I went by my male name. I was a gay boy, and I stuck out like a sore thumb. lol
So you never took any hormones?Quote:
And Klinefelter's, which I've been told I probably have, is generally treatable by just being yourself. lol In my case, it's being a female. But there's nothing I can do about having XXY chromosomes. But I plan on getting the karyotype test eventually and finding out once and for all. Not that it would change much tho'.
Are you from Texas?Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematics1900
No New Zealand, is there a lot of animal sex in Texas too?Quote:
Are you from Texas?