(August 25, 2015 at 9:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 8:39 am)dyresand Wrote: There is no evidence to support to judo christian god like there is no evidence for the goddess jupiter, thor, loki, kraken, big foot etc.
1. New Testament stories don't claim to be first hand accounts.

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John 21
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Quote:2. The gospel the only account of jesus supposed existence contradict one another.

You mean, there was no collusion? Good, I'm glad that's settled.

It is not unusual for eyewitnesses to contradict one another on various points, and the fact that they do so does not undermine their ability to provide useful information about what they have seen. Eyewitnesses to the sinking of the Titanic disagreed about whether the ship broke in two before slipping beneath the waves. Yet they all agreed the ship did sink.

Quote:3. No first century evidence that support yeshua

You mean other than

• Matthew
  
• Mark
  
• Luke
  
• John
  
• Paul
  
• James
  
• Josephus
  
• Tacitus
  
• Mara bar Serapion
  

Quote:I could keep going on but jesus never existed ever.

Well, you do to tend to go on and on, but you're wrong.

Quote:I said it before ill say it again pontious pilate would have kept a record of someone named jesus and he would have been in it. Considering jesus was never in said records well put two and two together you will finally learn hey religion is a lie made up by bronze age goat herders and men looking for a way to con people.

An argument from silence?

Quote:"Ben Witherington points out:

About Felix’s successor, Porcius Festus, very little can be said, for our sources are limited to what we find in Acts 25–26 and in Josephus, Ant. 20.182–97 and War 2.271 [The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 717].

Got that?

The sources we have about Festus are limited to Acts and a couple of passages in Josephus.

Now, Festus was an important man. He ruled the entire province of Judaea (more than just the Southern territory of Judea). He had a huge number of subjects. He’s one of the successors of Pontius Pilate. Further, he was one of the few (some say the only) good procurator that the Romans sent to Judaea.

And yet we know only a tiny amount about him." [Source]

Now, if we know almost nothing from history about important Roman officials like Pontius Pilate and Festus, why should we expect that the Romans bothered with any contemporaneous records about someone they executed as a common criminal?

1. those weren't first hand accounts those were hearsay

2. you cannot compare the titanic disaster to the gospel. 

3. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."  <- this is the important part as yes jesus is made up.

4. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Meaning the fucker existed he never died it's just a story the end. 

(August 25, 2015 at 9:28 am)abaris Wrote: you may just as well preach to the quire,

What's a quire?...
Ah, never mind!

Quote:quire
kwī(ə)r/
noun
noun: quire; plural noun: quires

four sheets of paper or parchment folded to form eight leaves, as in medieval manuscripts.
any collection of leaves one within another in a manuscript or book.
25 (formerly 24) sheets of paper; one twentieth of a ream.

Why would Randy preach to 4 sheets of paper?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Thena323 Wrote: No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

You can go ahead and take this one...I'm interested to see what you would say. Thanks!

You should read my post again, sir. I do not care to explain the particulars of your faith to anyone.  Isn't that your job?The question was directed towards you, after all. You shouldn't expect others to give your beliefs consideration, if you're willing to pawn off such important questions to a non-believer.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:04 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 7:53 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Meh... In Randy's case brevity is much appreciated, since on virtually all issues sooner or later he will have to fall back on dogmatism. The way I see it - the sooner, the better.

Of course, I know what his explanation is/would be - something about there being a difference between devotion to Mary and adoration of Jesus/god/holy spirit, as stated in Catholic Catechism. The thing is - he might want to start explaining this to his fellow catholics, because half of them, when asked to name the 3 persons of the Trinity - says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph", or something to that effect...

Why would anyone take you seriously when you post stupid stuff like this?

Why don't you clarify things for us, Randy?

(August 25, 2015 at 8:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Who bothers to write a contemporaneous biography about someone who hasn't achieved anything yet?

What do you mean? 

Quote:Are the Gospels any different? Did Luke interview Mary, for example, to get the background story about the Annunciation from her?

Yes, the Gospels are clearly different from the examples you cite. They were composed largely for the purpose of conveying theological and ethical guidance to a particular sect of Christians. They make no attempt at establishing historical credibility because that's not their concern. Their aim is rather to interpret the events of Jesus life, using embellishment and by allegorizng the Old Testament in conjunction with Greek philosophy, to create a portrait of reality as they perceive it - one that is highly superstitious and therefore, almost completely fiction, one that includes the belief in evil spirits which roam the earth and are the cause of all falsehood and idolatry. They're stories, written by authors whose backgrounds are unknown until many decades later when church authorities who wished to legitimize their dogmas by establishing the notion of apostolic succession attached specific names to the works that supported their point of view. 

Quote:But why would we expect there to be much written about Jesus in a largely illiterate age when even more famous people got scant mention in the ancient histories? Even Pontius Pilate was long-thought to be a mythical figure until an inscription bearing his name was finally discovered on a stone tablet a few years ago.

Well, most of ancient history is lost because for 1,000 years the church preserved what it felt were in its interests and either destroyed what it feared, or suppressed it. So, it's not shocking that the information we have about Pilate, apart from Philo of Alexandria, consists of nonsense like The Acts of Pilate.

You say that my objections can be easily overcome - but bear in mind it's not me you and your fellow religionists need to convince. It's the majority of historians.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:31 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Are professional historians able to rely on that type of direct evidence, Nestor?

If not, are they unable to learn anything about the past?

Occasionally, yes. Chemical analysis is, after all, how the once touted Shroud of Turin was exposed to be a medieval fraud. There's also archaeological evidence, which is quite direct. That's not too say that the past can't be reconstructed by the written record but it means that much greater substantiation is required than that which is contained in the Gospels - independent sources, with a variety of (conflicting) motives, helps, and even then anecdotal testimony is often called into question. Take Diogenes Laertius, for example.  

Quote:That sounds good. I assume this means that you'll be reading the NT books as first-century Christian sources.

Yes.

(August 19, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Your silly old books are evidence of nothing except your own willingness to be conned.  Grow the fuck up.

And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

(August 25, 2015 at 9:45 am)dyresand Wrote: 1. those weren't first hand accounts those were hearsay

Is that the conclusion of professional historians?

Quote:2. you cannot compare the titanic disaster to the gospel. 

Actually, I can and did. Eyewitness accounts NORMALLY vary; when they don't, police investigators suspect collusion.

Quote:3. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph. They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy. Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."  <- this is the important part as yes jesus is made up.

No, that would only mean that people have speculated about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph had a biological father (who died young) and a legal father who married Joseph's mother according the Levitical law. Take a look:

The Genealogies of Jesus
http://straightforward.wikidot.com/matthew-1-1-16-bc

One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (Mary's biological father) became Joseph's surrogate father, thus making Joseph Heli's heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom.

Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his "son-in-law" would have been called "son" and considered a descendent. Although it would have been unusual to trace a genealogy from the maternal side, there was nothing usual about the virgin birth. Additionally, if Mary (Jesus' blood relative) was indeed a direct descendant of David, this would make her son "the seed of David" in keeping with Messianic prophecies.(1)
(Solving: 2, 3, and 4)

According to one of the oldest theories, some scholars assign the differences in genealogies to the "Levirate marriage" tradition. This custom said that if a man died without bearing any sons, his brother could then marry his widow, and their sons would carry on the dead man's name. For this theory to hold up, it would mean that Joseph, the father of Jesus, had both a legal father (Heli) and a biological father (Jacob), through a Levirate marriage.

The theory suggests that Joseph's grandfathers (Matthan according to Matthew; Matthat according to Luke) were brothers, both married to the same woman, Estha, one after the other. This would make Matthan's son (Jacob) Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account would trace Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.(2)

- See more at: http://straightforward.wikidot.com/matth...0gPmm.dpuf



http://straightforward.wdfiles.com/local...Theory.png

Quote:4. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

Tacitus. AD 116.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

You know what, Randy? As opposed to you, these people at least know the basic ropes when it comes to evaluating historical sources. You on the other hand have proven repeatedly that you don't know anything besides blindly trusting sources confirming your opinion. If asked, you either miss the point by a lightyear of you wave the question away as irrelevant because you don't know the first thing about the methodologies employed and the multitude of problems when dealing with written sources from different periods or oral history.

That's why you missed the purpose of my question about the Vita Karoli, since you're not able to look beyond the obvious.

Edit: As I see, you had another outburst, it would do you some good to understand Tacitus in his historical context and how a historian goes about evaluating him as a source. But I guess I might be just as well talking to a wall. In fact, the Ehrman quote I mentioned earlier in this very thread could give you some clues. But, seeing that you keep repeating the same unchecked bullshit over and over, still employing the good old copy paste, I won't hold my breath.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:29 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

You know what, Randy? As opposed to you, these people at least know the basic ropes when it comes to evaluating historical sources. You on the other hand have proven repeatedly that you don't know anything besides blindly trusting sources confirming your opinion. If asked, you either miss the point by a lightyear of you wave the question away as irrelevant because you don't know the first thing about the methodologies employed and the multitude of problems when dealing with written sources from different periods or oral history.

That's why you missed the purpose of my question about the Vita Karoli, since you're not able to look beyond the obvious.

Then why is it that no scholars (atheist or theist) take them seriously? Ehrman points out that only Richard Carrier has any REAL credentials, and yet, Ehrman still thinks Carrier is a loon.

Say, what you want about me. The problem is them.