(September 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Four times as many authors mention Jesus within the first 150 years of his life than mention Caesar Tiberius

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:Secondly, I do not reject evolution because of any “lack of evidence”, I reject it because of evidence to the contrary.

Thank you. You admit that you reject scholarly consensus when it doesn't support your position, favoring pseudo-science instead.

Hypocrite.

Quote:The Iliad never claims to be historically accurate, is written by one author, and is not well attested to at all (earliest manuscripts we have date to 500 years after the original and we have fewer than 700 of them, compared with over 24,000 of the NT). Got anything else you’d like to toss out and see if it sticks?

I just love that argument. A lie repeated 24,000 times becomes true.

Quote:Stop with the question-begging epithets, we’re not talking about mythology.

Yes we are. I see no reason to take Christian stories about Jesus any more seriously than I take ancient Greek stories about Hercules.

Quote:It’s obvious what this comes down to is, “DP doesn’t like the claims of the NT; therefore the NT is not historically accurate.”

Again, it's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of fanciful woo being written into history with no evidence.

Quote:That is irrational and not how we do scholarship. Bart Ehrman does not like the claims of the NT either, but he still views it as the best attested work of antiquity we have.

How sad. Maybe one day we'll live in a truly rational world where woo will be recognized as woo.

Quote:You’ve already been shown the facts.

No, you haven't.

Quote:When dealing with someone as biased as you are it’s not about what I can prove, it’s about what proof you’ll arbitrarily reject.

I used to believe in a Historical Jesus. Now I don't because I've found no proof that there was one. I used to be a conservative Republican. Now I'm a liberal Democrat because of what I learned. I have more than demonstrated in my life being perfectly willing to say "I was wrong" and changing my beliefs when I'm exposed to new evidence. Show me the evidence and you have my attention.

Quote:He doesn’t need to convince others, everyone else agrees with him. You can always find a small minority of the population who will deny historical facts like the moon landing, holocaust, and the existence of Jesus. No amount of proof will ever convince them because they’re not rational people.

You've been warned before about how poisoning the well through false association is a deceptive tactic. Now I'm calling you out on it.

Do you wish to have a rational discussion about this or are you going to use more deceptive tactics?

Quote:You’re knowledgeable of all of the evidence in regards to common descent?

Not all of it but enough.

Quote:You seriously do not know which manuscripts support the existence of Jesus?

The most powerful one I've seen are the Annals of Tacitus, which are late (2nd century), contain at least one altered word we know of and are so oblique they don't mention Jesus by name and are written in a fashion that suggests he could have been passing on what he'd heard from them.

Please do tell if you have something better. I'm seeing a lot of petulant ad hominems and deceptive tactics from you but so far not one shred of evidence.

(September 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Mythicism, …. goes back to the mid 18th

You’re absolutely right! The Jesus Myth hypothesis does not appear until over 1700 years after Christ’s life.

Except when it appears in the Bible. 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7.

Quote:The Jesus Myth hypothesis does not appear until over 1700 years after Christ’s life.

Because shitballs like you murdered anyone who dared think about the stupidity of your fucking fairy tales, asswipe.

Just remember that all you motherfuckers have a ton of blood on your holy hands.

(September 19, 2013 at 11:34 am)Tonus Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 9:59 am)Drich Wrote: I've answered this a dozen times.

Mary was to marry Joseph

Joseph knew he did not Father a child with Marry

That meant to joseph, that Mary while bethrothed to him she had sex with someone else.

THEN. WHY. CHECK. HER. FOR. VIRGINITY???

How can this be difficult to understand? She was pregnant. Up until this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the number of women who became pregnant without having sex was ZERO. Had she insisted that she was pure in spite of the growing baby in her belly, they may as well have started grabbing stones.

Quote:What did Herod do when he did find out?

Ah, so that's why. God feared for his life if too many people found out.

If Mary was pregnant, and was to be married to Joseph, would you think he'd ask wft is up with your baby bump? Your going to be my wife and now your pregnant, with someone else's baby?!?!

What do you think her response would have been?

She would have told him the whole Holy Spirit story. Which according to mat 2 Joseph did not believe till he was visited by an angel himself. Meaning Mary to this point would NOT have been checked.

With me so far?

Now they go to get married. Where do the have to go to get married? The Temple. And if Joseph noticed Mary was pregnant then the priest would have noticed. He would have looked to Joseph and said wtf? Couldn't you wait? Joseph would have to had told the truth or be subject to punishment befitting his supposed sex crime. When he said no the priest would have turned to Mary and asked if what Joseph said was true. If she said no, She would have been expected to provide 'proof.' If Joseph was not the father then they would have inquired to the natured of the pregnancy because this was an illegal act outside of marriage. Then she would have said she was still a virgin.

Thus requiring the priest to have her checked. If for no other reason than to prove that she committed a Hersey.

Do you STILL not understand?

(September 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Drich Wrote: Thus requiring the priest to have her checked.

Sounds invasive and slightly pornographic. Are you sure the priest checked her out?

Quote:Now they go to get married. Where do the have to go to get married? The Temple.

What the fuck are you talking about, Drippy? Did you watch The Wedding Planner too many times?

Ancient marriages were contractual alliances between families. You may fool your xtian buddies but you don't know shit from shinola.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 11:34 am)Tonus Wrote: THEN. WHY. CHECK. HER. FOR. VIRGINITY???

How can this be difficult to understand? She was pregnant. Up until this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the number of women who became pregnant without having sex was ZERO. Had she insisted that she was pure in spite of the growing baby in her belly, they may as well have started grabbing stones.
Ah, so that's why. God feared for his life if too many people found out.

If Mary was pregnant, and was to be married to Joseph, would you think he'd ask wft is up with your baby bump? Your going to be my wife and now your pregnant, with someone else's baby?!?!

What do you think her response would have been?

She would have told him the whole Holy Spirit story. Which according to mat 2 Joseph did not believe till he was visited by an angel himself. Meaning Mary to this point would NOT have been checked.

With me so far?

Now they go to get married. Where do the have to go to get married? The Temple. And if Joseph noticed Mary was pregnant then the priest would have noticed. He would have looked to Joseph and said wtf? Couldn't you wait? Joseph would have to had told the truth or be subject to punishment befitting his supposed sex crime. When he said no the priest would have turned to Mary and asked if what Joseph said was true. If she said no, She would have been expected to provide 'proof.' If Joseph was not the father then they would have inquired to the natured of the pregnancy because this was an illegal act outside of marriage. Then she would have said she was still a virgin.

Thus requiring the priest to have her checked. If for no other reason than to prove that she committed a Hersey.

Do you STILL not understand?

Any yet the priest who did the checking didn't feel it necessary to report his finding (pregnant virgin) to anyone?

Further, if he was marrying her I'd guess the fact that they appeared to have had sex beforehand would probably have been overlooked. You think this never happened back then? And that is assuming that she was showing by the time of the wedding. Is there anything to suggest that he noticed Mary was pregnant rather than her simply telling him?

(September 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Drich Wrote: Now they go to get married. Where do the have to go to get married? The Temple.

You mentioned earlier the verses 20-25. Verse 24 tells us that Joseph "took Mary home as his wife." Is there anything in the Bible that indicates that couples were to be wed in the temple, or that this custom was followed in Jesus' time?

(September 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 11:34 am)Tonus Wrote: THEN. WHY. CHECK. HER. FOR. VIRGINITY???

How can this be difficult to understand? She was pregnant. Up until this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the number of women who became pregnant without having sex was ZERO. Had she insisted that she was pure in spite of the growing baby in her belly, they may as well have started grabbing stones.
Ah, so that's why. God feared for his life if too many people found out.

If Mary was pregnant, and was to be married to Joseph, would you think he'd ask wft is up with your baby bump? Your going to be my wife and now your pregnant, with someone else's baby?!?!

What do you think her response would have been?

She would have told him the whole Holy Spirit story. Which according to mat 2 Joseph did not believe till he was visited by an angel himself. Meaning Mary to this point would NOT have been checked.

With me so far?

Now they go to get married. Where do the have to go to get married? The Temple. And if Joseph noticed Mary was pregnant then the priest would have noticed. He would have looked to Joseph and said wtf? Couldn't you wait? Joseph would have to had told the truth or be subject to punishment befitting his supposed sex crime. When he said no the priest would have turned to Mary and asked if what Joseph said was true. If she said no, She would have been expected to provide 'proof.' If Joseph was not the father then they would have inquired to the natured of the pregnancy because this was an illegal act outside of marriage. Then she would have said she was still a virgin.

Thus requiring the priest to have her checked. If for no other reason than to prove that she committed a Hersey.

Do you STILL not understand?

Nothing medical about any of the bullshit excuses for your myth. Superstitious men wrote that story the way they did because back then men were sexist and women and girls were property.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:08 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Unsupported assertion.

No, it’s supported and well known, 42 authors mention Jesus while only 10 mention Tiberius. That’s over four times as many.

Quote:Thank you. You admit that you reject scholarly consensus when it doesn't support your position, favoring pseudo-science instead.

No, I reject the scientific majority opinion (not consensus) because of contrary evidence. You’re rejecting the consensus opinion of historians with no contrary evidence at all. All you did by bringing up evolution was demonstrate that your beliefs are even more extreme than young-Earth creationism. Nicely done.

Quote:I just love that argument. A lie repeated 24,000 times becomes true.

Truth reported 24,000 times.

Quote:Yes we are. I see no reason to take Christian stories about Jesus any more seriously than I take ancient Greek stories about Hercules.

“I see no reason to accept that the Holocaust really happened over the killing of Ewoks in the Return of the Jedi”

Absurdity at its finest.

Quote:Again, it's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of fanciful woo being written into history with no evidence.

You’re the one not accepting the accepted position; that is irrational until counter-evidence is provided. That’s how history works. We do not have to re-invent the wheel every day for people like you.

Quote:How sad. Maybe one day we'll live in a truly rational world where woo will be recognized as woo.

I prefer the world we live in now where history is recognized as history and people like you are laughed at.

Quote:No, you haven't.

I’ve seen your videos, I know you’re fully aware of the evidence for Jesus; you merely dismiss it upon irrational grounds. I cannot help you there.

Quote:I used to believe in a Historical Jesus.

Then you used to be rational.

Quote: Now I don't because I've found no proof that there was one.

There’s no proof that any historical figure existed.

Quote: I used to be a conservative Republican. Now I'm a liberal Democrat because of what I learned. I have more than demonstrated in my life being perfectly willing to say "I was wrong" and changing my beliefs when I'm exposed to new evidence. Show me the evidence and you have my attention.

I actually agree with Ehrman on this issue, there are a small group of people who will believe in the Jesus Myth no matter how much evidence is provided. They do not want Jesus to have existed so they will irrationally believe he never existed. Ehrman believes this sort of irrationality is driven by a severe and illogical hatred for organized religion. Ehrman is correct in comparing these people with people who deny the Holocaust and who believe Abraham Lincoln never existed. The important task for those of us who actually value historical facts is to convince the people in the middle who have been exposed to the falsehoods espoused by the Jesus myth crowd. Those people’s minds are not too far gone yet.

Quote:You've been warned before about how poisoning the well through false association is a deceptive tactic. Now I'm calling you out on it.

They’re not false associations. You are all denying historical facts for self-serving reasons. This is exactly what Ahmadinejad does concerning the Holocaust, he hates Jews so therefore they were never unfairly persecuted. You hate Christianity so therefore Jesus never really existed.

Quote: Do you wish to have a rational discussion about this or are you going to use more deceptive tactics?

I wish to have a rational discussion, but I feel that is not possible with you on this matter. When you insist on arbitrarily dismissing evidence that no historian does there is nothing else I can do other than call you out for your lunacy.

Quote:Not all of it but enough.

You personally collected this evidence or merely read about it?

Quote:The most powerful one I've seen are the Annals of Tacitus, which are late (2nd century), contain at least one altered word we know of and are so oblique they don't mention Jesus by name and are written in a fashion that suggests he could have been passing on what he'd heard from them.

Please do tell if you have something better. I'm seeing a lot of petulant ad hominems and deceptive tactics from you but so far not one shred of evidence.

Well you’ve already conceded that we have more than “a shred of evidence” by referencing Tacitus and Josephus. You must justify your assertion that the evidence we do have for Jesus is not sufficient in order to establish his existence. Until you do so, I see no justification for needing anymore evidence.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:10 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Except when it appears in the Bible. 1John 4:1-3

Where do you get this stuff from? The false sprits in John 4 and the antichrists in 2 John 1 are leading people (gnostics) to believe Jesus was not a physical person but rather a spiritual phantasm who merely appeared to suffer, not that he never existed at all and was merely a myth created by early Christians. Apparently, your ideas are even too extreme for demons and antichrists.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because shitballs like you murdered anyone who dared think about the stupidity of your fucking fairy tales, asswipe.

You’re so terrible at this. Christians were not in power until the 4th Century (and even then only in Rome), where are all the references to the Jesus Myth prior to that? Where’s your evidence that any references to the Jesus Myth were ever destroyed by the early or later Church? It’s obvious you’ll believe anything.

Quote: Just remember that all you motherfuckers have a ton of blood on your holy hands.

No blood on these hands old timer.