(August 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

---

(August 5, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But there are facts.

1- No Roman writer prior to Celsus in 185 mentions anyone named "jesus."

Pretty weasely, Min, given that at least one Jewish historian working for the Roman government mentioned him by name along with several Jewish writers. And then there are the reference to Christus or Chrestus which appear in other places...LOOOOOONG before AD 185.

Quote:2- There apparently was a group called "Chrestians" in Rome itself in the early part of the first century.  Suetonius mentions them and your pal Tacitus' only surviving manuscript shows that the word he used was Chrestianos (followers of Chrestus) not "Christianos" followers of christ until it was edited by some helpful scribe probably in the 9th century. 

Which seems to be a big deal to absolutely no one, but you and your fellow mythers. Why it's almost as if you expect standardization of spelling in an age that did not even have printing presses.

Yeah...I'd put this on par with someone in 1980 writing the name of Bill Gates' company as Micro-soft instead of MicroSoft.

Quote:4- There are no first-century xtian burial catacombs in Rome.

---

Quote:Perhaps, but you can take a virtual tour of the first century necropolis where St. Peter is buried beneath the main altar in St. Peter's Basilica here:

http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/...glish.html

Here's a diagram:



And a photo of the underground street leading to Peter's tomb:

If I read any more stupid BS I'm going to swear like a maniac and probably get banned.

Now listen up all of you dummies.  

St. Peter's Basilica's cornerstone was laid on April 18, 1506 and it opened for business on November 18, 1626.  Now raise your hand if you are actually stupid enough to actually believe that some nitwit's bones from a guy named Peter in the 1st Century survived the turmoil in Rome for 1500 years so that some clown could conveniently bury them under the new church.

(August 23, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If I read any more stupid BS I'm going to swear like a maniac and probably get banned.

Now listen up all of you dummies.  

St. Peter's Basilica's cornerstone was laid on April 18, 1506 and it opened for business on November 18, 1626.  Now raise your hand if you are actually stupid enough to actually believe that some nitwit's bones from a guy named Peter in the 1st Century survived the turmoil in Rome for 1500 years so that some clown could conveniently bury them under the new church.

When did Constantine build the first Church over Peter's tomb?

And how, exactly, did the Catholic Church manage to shoehorn all that first century stuff under a Church that was not constructed in the 17th century?

Or was the new basilica simply built over top of a much older structure which in turn was built over top of the street and necropolis pictured above?

[video=dailymotion]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LJq7_UKqUA[/video]

(August 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You've thrown a lot of crap at the wall but do you have any hard evidence?  Please produce links to your 1st & 2nd Century sources so that we can evaluate them.

I already covered this in the last goddamned thread. Yes there is hard evidence . You already have a list of 1st and 2nd century works here.

(August 23, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(August 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You've thrown a lot of crap at the wall but do you have any hard evidence?  Please produce links to your 1st & 2nd Century sources so that we can evaluate them.

I already covered this in the last goddamned thread. Yes there is hard evidence . You already have a list of 1st and 2nd century works here.

I'm gonna bookmark that post.

One of the few things we'll agree on Randy is that Min is afraid to respond to my posts.

(August 23, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(August 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You've thrown a lot of crap at the wall but do you have any hard evidence?  Please produce links to your 1st & 2nd Century sources so that we can evaluate them.

I already covered this in the last goddamned thread. Yes there is hard evidence . You already have a list of 1st and 2nd century works here.

Have you learned nothing of Min, because I certainly have and he has even stated it many times.

I personally clicked on your links, and I saw no evidence whatsoever.

What I saw was what a delusional individual would misconstrue as evidence.

If you could mayhaps, I will not hold my breath, provide any real evidence, I am certain that Min would be as much obliged as would I.

[Edited, I did not phrase this well]

I'm not trying to be accusatory or judgemental, I simply have a genuine question. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's rather a thought I had regarding the whole of the general community who fight over the details of HJ.

Say we capture 1,000 lifelong atheists and 1,000 ex-Christian atheists. We force them to assign a percentage 0-100 on the likely correlation between biblical Jesus and a single, distinct historical character. Would we expect to see a higher percentage from the ex-Christians?

This is a genuine question, and again not a judgement of any kind. It seems I've noticed something of a correlation, but I admit the amount of data I have subconsciously collected on this issue is going to be a small sample.

(August 23, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 23, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If I read any more stupid BS I'm going to swear like a maniac and probably get banned.

Now listen up all of you dummies.  

St. Peter's Basilica's cornerstone was laid on April 18, 1506 and it opened for business on November 18, 1626.  Now raise your hand if you are actually stupid enough to actually believe that some nitwit's bones from a guy named Peter in the 1st Century survived the turmoil in Rome for 1500 years so that some clown could conveniently bury them under the new church.

When did Constantine build the first Church over Peter's tomb?

And how, exactly, did the Catholic Church manage to shoehorn all that first century stuff under a Church that was not constructed in the 17th century?

Or was the new basilica simply built over top of a much older structure which in turn was built over top of the street and necropolis pictured above?

[video=dailymotion]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LJq7_UKqUA[/video]

That's not 1st Century Roman construction.

(August 24, 2015 at 2:35 am)Kitan Wrote: I personally clicked on your links, and I saw no evidence whatsoever.

Please by all means cite a reputable scholar for that assertion.

(August 23, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(August 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You've thrown a lot of crap at the wall but do you have any hard evidence?  Please produce links to your 1st & 2nd Century sources so that we can evaluate them.

I already covered this in the last goddamned thread. Yes there is hard evidence . You already have a list of 1st and 2nd century works here.

Other posters have already beaten you about the head and shoulders on your "evidence".
BTW, since the complete fairy tale wasn't written until centuries after the events supposedly took place your "evidence" is hardly credible.