(December 1, 2010 at 11:15 am)chatpilot Wrote: Chapabel, can you say oral traditions? Also, it's nice that you mentioned those so called 500 witnesses mentioned in the scriptures who supposedly witnessed Jesus ascension up into the clouds. Not one of them even wrote about Jesus, in fact Jesus himself did not write a single word himself that is found in your bible. Everything that is written there are second, third, or fourth person accounts ad infinitum. Basically you are believing what someone else said Jesus said. Also, you said Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus which is in the scriptures as well, supposedly while he was traveling on the road to Damascus. It's interesting that none of the others that were there wrote or even mentioned this event so here is my question, were they also illiterate like the other 500 witnesses or was this just a coincidence?

It's interesting to note also that none of the historians of the alleged time when Jesus conducted his ministry around 30 -33 CE even bothered to write one word about him. He was supposedly raising the dead, healing incurable diseases and maladies so much so that he drew the attention of the authorities, yet not one historian bothered to write a single word about this "great" man claiming to be the son of God.

The 500 witnesses may not have confirmed what Paul wrote, but neither did any of them deny what he wrote. The same applies to those traveling with Paul. None of them refuted his claim. And BTW, yes, most of the people at the time were illiterate.

Remember also that silence is not evidence. Just because no secular historian wrote about Jesus at the time proves nothing. If silence is evidence then the silence of opposition against Jesus must be accepted as well.

Here's an interesting thought but note that it is just speculation on my part. Why is it that the letters to the church are older than the gospels considering that the gospels are supposed to be the basis for the belief system itself? Could it be that later people who joined the early church wanted to know who this Christ was? I mean they have been worshiping him for about 40 years or so and they knew absolutely nothing about him except what they were being told to them by his alleged followers the apostles. Could it be that this lack of information led to the church putting together a bogus biography to fill this void?

(December 1, 2010 at 11:30 am)Chapabel Wrote: Remember also that silence is not evidence. Just because no secular historian wrote about Jesus at the time proves nothing. If silence is evidence then the silence of opposition against Jesus must be accepted as well.

Who is smart enough to point out where he went wrong, but confused enough to believe he might benefit from having his error pointed out to him?

Being new here I have not completely mastered the tools here. How do I quote only a portion of a post such as the post above?

Chapabel wrote: Here's the real curious thought...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims?

DeistPaladin replied: The works of critics of Christianity are "lost to us" and only come to us as they are quoted by Christian defenders of the faith.

DP I completely agree with your statement on this matter, for the benefit of Chapabel let me expound on why we don't have counter claims to the Jesus myth. It's called church suppression and it has been going on for ages, once the church had gained the backing of the Roman empire through the conversion of Constantine they set out to suppress all other religions and belief systems, surely this was also extended to documents that contradicted their doctrines and faith. They are known to have conducted book burnings and executions to all those that opposed their teachings. World dominance was one of the early churches agendas and they did everything possible to assert their place in history.

(December 1, 2010 at 11:45 am)Chapabel Wrote: Being new here I have not completely mastered the tools here. How do I quote only a portion of a post such as the post above?

Delete the parts you don't want from between "(quote)" and "(/quote)" tags.

(December 1, 2010 at 11:30 am)Chapabel Wrote: The 500 witnesses may not have confirmed what Paul wrote, but neither did any of them deny what he wrote.

What?!!?

How could 500 mythical "witnesses" deny anything? Yesterday I flapped my arms and flew up into the sky! Five hundred people witnessed it! None of them are denying it, so it must be true!

Unbelievable....

Quote:The same applies to those traveling with Paul. None of them refuted his claim. And BTW, yes, most of the people at the time were illiterate.

See above comment.

Quote:Remember also that silence is not evidence. Just because no secular historian wrote about Jesus at the time proves nothing.

Keep telling yourself that. Then ask yourself how a man running around performing all manner of miracles who then rises up from the dead after being executed isn't worth even a passing mention in the works of someone keeping historical records.

Quote:If silence is evidence then the silence of opposition against Jesus must be accepted as well.

Show me where people wrote about their opposition to Pecos Bill. By your logic, we must then accept the notion that Pecos Bill truly lived and he actually lassoed a tornado!

You won the prize.

(December 1, 2010 at 11:30 am)Chapabel Wrote: The 500 witnesses may not have confirmed what Paul wrote, but neither did any of them deny what he wrote.

According to Acts 1:15 there were only 120 believers. What happened to the other 380?

Quote:Remember also that silence is not evidence.

But contradictions in the testimony are. Even taking Christian scripture at face value, there are a lot of problems. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you think of John's epsitles regarding the early Christians who didn't believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus 1John 4:1-3 or 2John 1:7 and how Paul flatly denies that Jesus had lived within his lifetime 1Cor 15:8

Quote:Alright, let me now ask you something...where did you find this information concerning these ancient writers? You most certainly were not around to witness them for yourself. Have you personally examined their original writings? Probably not. So you cannot say that you know for certain they were tampered with can you?

I'm 62 years old and have been fascinated by Greco-Roman history since I was 19 and a college sophmore. Back then there was no internet ( heresy to the youngsters around here, I know) so yes. I have read this stuff in (gasp) books!

There are scholars ( I direct you to the Bart Ehrman thread) who have spent their lives studying this stuff. They write books which drive xtians nuts and good for them I say.

The bottom line remains that the only place your 'jesus' exists is in the pages of your bible...a committee based compilation of ancient documents meant to fulfill a political need for both the empire and the church. In much the same way Scarlett O'Hara only exists in Gone With The Wind and Luke Skywalker only exists in Star Wars. All fictional characters have that common link. Oddly, the editors of the NT weren't overly concerned with the obvious contradictions because they could simply kill anyone who dared point them out. The church started going downhill when they lost that ability. You should consider that aspect of the problem more closely.

At any event I still have a fairly extensive collection of ancient Greek and Roman writers in my library. What I do not bother with is pious xtian bullshit. If you wish to delude yourself that's not my problem. All I ask is that you keep your bullshit out of our courts and classrooms.

---

Quote:Nope. Most of the N.T. is thought to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is well within the time frame...try again.

Patently absurd. Who thinks that? Other fundies desperate to believe in rapture stories? Well your rapture is from 1830 and a psychotic teenager talking to John Nelson Darby!

BTW, there are enough holes in the "Saul/Paul" story to drive a truck through. Very little in the way of historical markers and the one which does come to mind places the writing in the early first century BC when King Aretas of Nabatea actually DID control the city of Damascus. ( He lost it to the Romans.)

---

Quote:Remember also that silence is not evidence.

Absolutely wrong. Absence of evidence is indeed EVIDENCE of absence. It is not "proof" of absence but it sure as shit is "evidence."

Were I to assert that there was a Roman city located on the site of Louisville and a team of archaeologists dug down to 2d-3d century levels and found NOTHING they would categorically state that there was no evidence whatsoever of my claim. And they would be right. As one cannot disprove a negative they could not say that they had "proven" the claim false but they could state that there was no evidence to support it.

That's how I feel about your jesus....and mohammad and moses and all the other made up nonsense that humanity has been scaring itself shitless with since the dawn of time.