(October 24, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Sources please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents

Quote:Although consistent with other documented actions of King Herod the massacre cannot be positively verified outside of the biblical source. Based on the sole Biblical source, it could be estimated that the number of infants killed at the time in Bethlehem, a town with a total population of about 1000, would be about twenty.

Why focus on Jesus? Many atheists online (not all of course, some are highly educated) don't believe the records of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians on Ancient Canaan.

You can't ding them for being wary of evidence for Jesus (well at least not from a secular perspective), but you can easily get them on their lack of secular knowledge.

As a Christian, I find it immeasurably less time consuming and requires no effort to go after their secular knowledge than waste my time talking about religion. Who would have thought these atheists would be weakest on the subject they so proudly boast?

The same can be said for living the life Jesus lived and those Evangelicals living in the Bible Belt. I don't recall Jesus being against the poor or outcast.

(October 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: Why focus on Jesus? Many atheists online (not all of course, some are highly educated) don't believe the records of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians on Ancient Canaan.

You can't ding them for being wary of evidence for Jesus (well at least not from a secular perspective), but you can easily get them on their lack of secular knowledge.

As a Christian, I find it immeasurably less time consuming and requires no effort to go after their secular knowledge than waste my time talking about religion. Who would have thought these atheists would be weakest on the subject they so proudly boast?

The same can be said for living the life Jesus lived and those Evangelicals living in the Bible Belt. I don't recall Jesus being against the poor or outcast.

¿No comprende usted?

My being an atheist doesn't rely on (correct, proven, or 'anything') testimonials, writings, cave drawings, epistles, what have you.

My being an atheist is solely based on science and everything it proves and explains. What it proves and explains is what every religion in the past created to fulfill some sort of 'what's it all for' question that everyone needed answering in those most ancient of days.

Why I think it got so widespread regardless of the uncertainty of the times; The people who made it up knew it wasn't true, but they had all the ducets or paper or papyrus or gold or silver or whatever currency was popular at the time. That's what mattered; they knew they had the money and the power and that their followers had no such thing and no clue. "I dunno why. But I dunno why it matters, because I'm rich!"

Quote:The Massacre of the Innocents is the biblical narrative of infanticide by Herod the Great,

We know that, J-V. That's exactly the problem. It exists no where else except Matty. And it is a little too close to the tale of Sargon to take seriously.

Quote:Why focus on Jesus?

Because that is the missing link in the first century. No one heard of him.

(October 24, 2013 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But isn't it the strangest thing that all the time that Jesus was wandering around performing miracles not one person thought to write any of it down.

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Go to the post Jesus Itinerary, see post #163.

---

(October 24, 2013 at 10:02 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bah. I haven't the patience to multi quote the OP.

I would address one issue...stating that 55CE is 'too early for legend'. Says who??? Anyone familiar with the outlaw West(US), is also familiar with how the James Gang was immortalized in dime store novels even as the gang still was operating. The stories romanticised the lawlessness because it made for sales, not because it was reporting the truth. I see no reason to consider the Jesus story as any different. It actually smacks strongly of legend, and has Jesse James to compare itself with. No doubt there are scores of legends assembled similarly.

The stories of Jesse James were embellished, for money. Guess what they were also true about Jesse being a murderer and a bank robber, no legend he was a real person who did bad things and embellished to make money. Christ is a real person who was recorded by eyewitness. It's written down, it's been spread all over the world, sorry you missed it.

GC

(October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm)John V Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Sources please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents

Quote:Although consistent with other documented actions of King Herod the massacre cannot be positively verified outside of the biblical source. Based on the sole Biblical source, it could be estimated that the number of infants killed at the time in Bethlehem, a town with a total population of about 1000, would be about twenty.

You might want to actually read that article properly lad.
At no point does it state the massacre is an historical event.

So this in itself may be a common misconception, but from every person I've heard speak of it, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source... do not trust these people.

Am I wrong?

(October 25, 2013 at 12:55 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But isn't it the strangest thing that all the time that Jesus was wandering around performing miracles not one person thought to write any of it down.

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Go to the post Jesus Itinerary, see post #163.

---

(October 24, 2013 at 10:02 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bah. I haven't the patience to multi quote the OP.

I would address one issue...stating that 55CE is 'too early for legend'. Says who??? Anyone familiar with the outlaw West(US), is also familiar with how the James Gang was immortalized in dime store novels even as the gang still was operating. The stories romanticised the lawlessness because it made for sales, not because it was reporting the truth. I see no reason to consider the Jesus story as any different. It actually smacks strongly of legend, and has Jesse James to compare itself with. No doubt there are scores of legends assembled similarly.

The stories of Jesse James were embellished, for money. Guess what they were also true about Jesse being a murderer and a bank robber, no legend he was a real person who did bad things and embellished to make money. Christ is a real person who was recorded by eyewitness. It's written down, it's been spread all over the world, sorry you missed it.

GC

Yes? And who are these eyewitnesses of whom you speak?

Because it appears they failed to write their experiences down anywhere.

(October 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: You can't ding them for being wary of evidence for Jesus (well at least not from a secular perspective), but you can easily get them on their lack of secular knowledge.

As a Christian, I find it immeasurably less time consuming and requires no effort to go after their secular knowledge than waste my time talking about religion. Who would have thought these atheists would be weakest on the subject they so proudly boast?

Two things I can draw from this: one is that you're perfectly happy abandoning the subject being discussed if you can score some points by changing it to something else, and the second is that you don't understand what subjects are.

Because it's kind of unfair to scoff at atheists for not being full bottles on "knowledge," given that it encompasses literally everything that isn't religion.