So you base your belief that Livy existed on some historical writing he wrote, one example the Chronikon, that only fragments (mainly excerpts) survive but was translated and rewritten by other authors ( Eusebius of Caesaria, St Jerome, etc) exclusively?

Quote:What bothers me here is the allegation of many here that there is no evidence whatsoever for the historicity of the Bible or the historicity of Jesus, Himself.

You say that, rj, but then you fail to provide any historical evidence from the period to support your case. Don't feel bad about that, there is none. Would you use Gone With The Wind as a reference book for the American Civil War? Of course not, we know it is a novel. But like Rhett Butler, your jesus only exists within the pages of one book or the later writings of other xtians which were derived from it.

Was there a Yeshua bar Yosep? There had to be a hundred of them in first century Judaea as both were exceedingly common names. Josephus speaks of over 20 Yeshuas throughout his writings but none bear any resemblance to the one you want...a fact which caused 4th centuriy xtians to write their boy into Josephus' narrative in a crude forgery. So the question comes, do you worship the man or the magic tricks he is alleged to have done. If there was Yeshua bar Yosep who was a camel jockey on the Arabian trade route or a Yeshua bar Yosep who worked on the docks in Caesarea these are of no interest to you. You need a specific Yeshua who did the magic tricks that your gospels claim he did. Yet, no Greco-Roman or Jewish writer from the first century ( Philo of Alexandria, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, etc) makes any mention of him.

At this point we are usually treated to the Great Christian Paradox: The xtian will protest that his/her jesus had many followers and was thus such a threat that the powers-that-were had to smack him down YET at the same time he was so insignificant that no one bothered to mention him. They will usually protest that Jerusalem was an out of the way place that no one paid any attention to....yada, yada, yada.

The problem with this is that it is simply not true. Jerusalem had, by this time, grown into a major city and due to Herod the Great's stroke of genius in building the port of Caesarea was deeply involved in the maritime trade of the empire. In addition to the sea routes Roman roads passed through the region linking the important cities of Antioch and Damascus with Alexandria. Ideas traveled on these roads as well as commerce. Philo ( A jew living in Alexandria ) commented extensively on religious affairs in Jerusalem yet, in spite of writing a tirade against Pontius Pilate for his arrogant mis-management of affairs in the city he never mentions anything about him executing someone who "multitudes" hailed as the messiah. Pliny's Natural History is a collection of stories of miraculous events and folklore. Never mentions jesus. And make no mistake, a tale of someone who had been executed by a Roman magistrate coming back from the dead would have been BIG NEWS throughout the empire. It would have been seen as a repudiation of that magistrate yet.... no one mentions it.

Even your own books cannot agree on significant details of your god's life. One has him born before 4 BC and another has him born after 6 AD and the other two don't care about his birth at all. They do not agree on events of his "resurrection" even though this is supposed to be the whole point of the story. If you cannot produce a coherent story from your own sources, why on earth would you expect us to give them any credence?

A single non-canonical reference (and obviously a non-forged reference) would be sufficient for me to concede the point that someone named jesus at least existed and did something in the 30's AD in Judaea.
If you ever find one let me know.

---

(January 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm)tackattack Wrote: So you base your belief that Livy existed on some historical writing he wrote, one example the Chronikon, that only fragments (mainly excerpts) survive but was translated and rewritten by other authors ( Eusebius of Caesaria, St Jerome, etc) exclusively?

Nice try but you forget that we have other references to Livy from other ancient writers, such as this one from Suetonius' Life of Claudius.

Quote:41 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] He began to write a history in his youth with the encouragement of Titus Livius and the direct help of Sulpicius Flavius.

When you can present anything written by your so-called godboy feel free to attempt a comparison.

Quote:What bothers me here is the allegation of many here that there is no evidence whatsoever for the historicity of the Bible or the historicity of Jesus, Himself.

Good reply to the above statement Min I have nothing to add and am not even going to touch this one since I have explained this so much that I have it oozing out of my ears lol.

Min, I think you missed my point.

Are you saying that all scholars who think the Bible constitutes an accurate historical record of Jesus have absolutely no basis for their conclusion?

A "yes" answer would not seem too credible as many major universities employ such scholars and I do not think it credible to say that such would be the case if they had no basis for their conclusions.

A "no" answer would seem to refute your previous position.

Either way, I don't think it is as cut and dry as you present it.

(January 21, 2010 at 2:09 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Min, I think you missed my point.

Are you saying that all scholars who think the Bible constitutes an accurate historical record of Jesus have absolutely no basis for their conclusion?

A "yes" answer would not seem too credible as many major universities employ such scholars and I do not think it credible to say that such would be the case if they had no basis for their conclusions.

A "no" answer would seem to refute your previous position.

Either way, I don't think it is as cut and dry as you present it.

I dont know seems pretty cut and dried to me.
It seems that there is nothing that you can point to as proof of a real jesus.

I still happen to think that there was a person the cult was founded around, but that is just supposition and I have no proof.

I think probably a minor charismatic in the Charles Manson, David Koresh Vein.

Anyhoo real Jesus Maybe son of God no.

Quote:Either way, I don't think it is as cut and dry as you present it.

I'm not terribly sure what your point was.

We have NO historical evidence for any miracle-working jesus in the first century AD. All you can point to are the writings of believers who, obviously, have a vested interest in propping up belief in their boy.

We have precisely the same sort of "evidence" for the Olympian gods however I am certain that in their case you would not assert that they were "real" because of it.

How much more cut and dried do you want it? Either present actual historical evidence or admit that you have none.

What you have is belief. I do not.

(January 21, 2010 at 4:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm not terribly sure what your point was.

We have NO historical evidence for any miracle-working jesus in the first century AD. All you can point to are the writings of believers who, obviously, have a vested interest in propping up belief in their boy.

We have precisely the same sort of "evidence" for the Olympian gods however I am certain that in their case you would not assert that they were "real" because of it.

How much more cut and dried do you want it? Either present actual historical evidence or admit that you have none.

What you have is belief. I do not.

The Bible IS the evidence.

I would think that any theory which dismisses the existance of Jesus, needs to provide some explanation about some guy who was claimed to be his brother by his rival. That would seem to be a reasonable request.

(January 21, 2010 at 6:37 pm)LEDO Wrote: I would think that any theory which dismisses the existance of Jesus, needs to provide some explanation about some guy who was claimed to be his brother by his rival. That would seem to be a reasonable request.

1) We don't know if Paul originally mentioned James as the brother of Jesus, i did some reading after our last discussion and found out that some of the earliest copies of the letters to the Galatians have no mention at all of the brotherhood, implying that it may have been a later addition, or it may not be, but surely there is some doubt even on this issue.

2) James doesn't even mention himself as the brother or Jesus and none of his letters mention anything related to their being brothers. It seems to be beyond bizarre to expect this man could avoid writing anything about his relationship with his own brother!

(January 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

(January 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm)tackattack Wrote: So you base your belief that Livy existed on some historical writing he wrote, one example the Chronikon, that only fragments (mainly excerpts) survive but was translated and rewritten by other authors ( Eusebius of Caesaria, St Jerome, etc) exclusively?

Nice try but you forget that we have other references to Livy from other ancient writers, such as this one from Suetonius' Life of Claudius.

Quote:41 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] He began to write a history in his youth with the encouragement of Titus Livius and the direct help of Sulpicius Flavius.

When you can present anything written by your so-called godboy feel free to attempt a comparison.

---

So you have more than one writer, writing about Livy and some translations of his words by other writers as your proof?