(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Reports from non-eyewitnesses decades or more after the person is said to exist is the weakest kind of evidence.

We do have eye witness accounts...and the belief in the Resurrection was not a belief that was held decades after the event. You are talking about when the biographies were written...but the general BELIEF in the Resurrection was something that was held shortly after the cross.

(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Take Alexander the Great. We have writings from his enemies, coinage from the exact time he was said to exist with his portrait found in some of the cities he was said to have conquered, a city named after him at the exact time he was said to exist, and more.

Nothing even close to this kind of evidence exists for Jesus.

None of that stuff means anything...because I can easily find a way to explain away everything. How do you know the existence of Alexander the Great wasn't one big giant hoax and he never existed?? Maybe the people of Macedon were proud people who wanted their legacy to live forever so they created a man named Alexander the Great and spread heroic stories about his alleged conquests and great feats?

How do you know that everything you were told isn't a big lie? That is the same crap you are pulling on Christianity.

(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: What a shock, you know almost as little about the Historical Method as you do about science.

What a shock, virtually all historians agree that Jesus Christ existed in human history. So apparently, the "Historical Method" that you refer to is enough to convince the majority of all historians.

As far as science is concerning...you already been spanked in that regard...when those wounds heal, then holla at me.

(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Are you proud of your willing ignorance?

No, but I am proud of the willful spankings that you will continue to receive as long as being whooped doesn't bother you.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Nonsense. The entire passage isn't an interpolation. It is obvious what parts are interpolated and what part isn't. Josephus was a Jewish historian, writing about stuff pertaining to the Jews, and it would be difficult to write about the history of the Jews in first century Palestine and not mention Jesus is some way, shape, or form, which he did. The only question would be to what length and in what context...but Jesus would be mentioned, nevertheless.

Curious that the passage allegedly existed (minus the parts you say are interpolations) yet not a single historian mentions it until 324. And then it is mentioned by Eusebius, a church father who said that it is permissible to lie for the Christian faith.

But the entire passage is sandwiched between 2 other passages that talk about nothing but trivial matters about the Jews of the time. The entire passage is out of place, and very uncharacteristic of Josephus other writings.

By the way, Josephus also mentions Hercules more times than Jesus in his writings, in much the same kind of context.

How reliable are his writings about Hercules?

(November 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 22, 2014 at 10:55 am)His_Majesty Wrote: First off, you don't know what kind of sources Josephus had. He was an adult within 20 years after Jesus crucifixion', during a time when Christianity was still new and spreading throughout the empire and the original disciples of Jesus were still alive.

You don't know what sources Josephus had either. So why is it wrong for Jenny to talk about him in the negative, but when you want to use him as a positive case it's perfectly fine? Double standard much?

Quote:Just because he choose to write his historical work much later in his life doesn't change the fact that he was a young adult within 20 years of the cross, which could be traced right back to the time of a specific procurator and a specific Roman emperor.

So, for clarity, what you're saying is that two decades after someone's death is an adequate time delay to be considered a contemporary source? It'd be like if we were only just now getting written records of stuff that happened in the nineties.

Quote:Nonsense. The average person during the time of Jesus, in that location, could not read or write. They were illiterate....and Jesus' travels took him to just religious cities, towns, and villages. The only people that could read and write were probably the Jewish authorities, and they were obviously not fans of Jesus to be writing about him.

You know what I'd expect to see, if Jesus really was a person traveling around at that time, let alone an actual guy performing miracles and claiming to be the son of god? Writings from the dominant religion of the time denouncing him. Since when has the first action of religion, when threatened, to be complete silence? This is just you retrofitting what you want to be true into the established facts, rather than approaching the situation as human beings might reasonably behave.

Quote:Information was passed through word of mouth...and what I find amazing is the fact that you claim that there is plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during that time, yet the legacy that Jesus left behind far better exceeds anyone in history.

We've been through this before. Jesus' "legacy" had plenty of help from armies of violent, crusading theocratic thugs. You cannot attribute it all to one man.

Man was more peaceful until religion came around. people complain the world is messed up but religion just made the world worse off we never really needed it.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You don't know what sources Josephus had either. So why is it wrong for Jenny to talk about him in the negative, but when you want to use him as a positive case it's perfectly fine? Double standard much?

If the historians today can use contemporary sources to draw their conclusions...then so could Jospheus...after all, he was only a historian that lived a lot closer to the time and geographical location than anyone typing in a atheist forum 2,000 years later.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, for clarity, what you're saying is that two decades after someone's death is an adequate time delay to be considered a contemporary source? It'd be like if we were only just now getting written records of stuff that happened in the nineties.

Dude, Christianity had already reached Corinth by that time. Word of mouth had already spread. The writings came later but the belief itself was much, much earlier. So in other words, if Christianity had already spread to Corinth from Jerusalem WITHOUT written records, then what does that tell you?

(November 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You know what I'd expect to see, if Jesus really was a person traveling around at that time, let alone an actual guy performing miracles and claiming to be the son of god? Writings from the dominant religion of the time denouncing him. Since when has the first action of religion, when threatened, to be complete silence? This is just you retrofitting what you want to be true into the established facts, rather than approaching the situation as human beings might reasonably behave.

But that would only backfire...you just gave a scenario of IF Jesus was actually performing miracles and questioning why wasn't the dominant religion of the time denouncing him...but IF he was, then in the midst of denouncing him, they would only corroborate what he was doing, which would do more harm than good.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We've been through this before. Jesus' "legacy" had plenty of help from armies of violent, crusading theocratic thugs. You cannot attribute it all to one man.

Yeah, we've been through this before so allow me to reiterate...the Christians were the ones being persecuted during the first and second century. What you are talking about happened hundreds of years later and doesn't even have the explanatory value to explain why is there 2 billion Christians in the world today, with no armies of violence....no crusading theocratic thugs....because of the acts of one man.

---

(November 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Curious that the passage allegedly existed (minus the parts you say are interpolations) yet not a single historian mentions it until 324.

Point?

(November 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: And then it is mentioned by Eusebius, a church father who said that it is permissible to lie for the Christian faith.

I don't know about that...but if he said it, then he said it.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But the entire passage is sandwiched between 2 other passages that talk about nothing but trivial matters about the Jews of the time. The entire passage is out of place, and very uncharacteristic of Josephus other writings.

I'd like to see the entire passage then.

(November 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: By the way, Josephus also mentions Hercules more times than Jesus in his writings, in much the same kind of context.

How reliable are his writings about Hercules?

Oh, he said that Hercules was crucified by Pontius Pilate...that is the only way it could be in the same context as you said, right?

---

(November 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm)dyresand Wrote: Man was more peaceful until religion came around. people complain the world is messed up but religion just made the world worse off we never really needed it.

What is religion?

(November 22, 2014 at 10:57 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

---

(November 22, 2014 at 5:13 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Nobody has ever come back to life after being clinically dead.

I can play that game too. "Nobody has ever seen abiogenesis in action"

(November 22, 2014 at 5:13 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: It's impossible until proven otherwise.

"Therefore, it's impossible until proven otherwise"

(November 22, 2014 at 5:13 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The end.

"The end".

See how that works?

---

Despite my continual requests for you stop being stupid you insist on being just that.

You can attempt to use fallacious equivocation to make your non-descript god-child-man-ghost more real, but when we bracket in the fact that abiogensis is a theoretical paradigm based on observations that have been made in the reality we exist in ('life' didn't exist, now it does), we can see that equating that to a magical jew coming back from the dead (which is demonstrably impossible using the exact same standard) is fucking ridiculous.

Defend your assertion. What evidence do you have that this Jésus character came back to life, or was even killed in the first place?

(November 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If the historians today can use contemporary sources to draw their conclusions...then so could Jospheus...after all, he was only a historian that lived a lot closer to the time and geographical location than anyone typing in a atheist forum 2,000 years later.

But you don't know what his sources were, or even if he did use contemporary sources at all, which is exactly what you pointed out to Jenny. The difference is that while we have no indication at all that Josephus used quality sources within his own writing, you're just assuming that he did for convenience; that's a positive claim with a burden of proof.

Quote: Dude, Christianity had already reached Corinth by that time. Word of mouth had already spread. The writings came later but the belief itself was much, much earlier. So in other words, if Christianity had already spread to Corinth from Jerusalem WITHOUT written records, then what does that tell you?

It tells me that word of mouth spread. That's not a particularly controversial claim, but it also doesn't come close to addressing my point. So I wonder why you bothered saying it at all, other than as deflection because you have no real response.

Quote:But that would only backfire...you just gave a scenario of IF Jesus was actually performing miracles and questioning why wasn't the dominant religion of the time denouncing him...but IF he was, then in the midst of denouncing him, they would only corroborate what he was doing, which would do more harm than good.

What? How would denouncing him as a charlatan, or servant of the devil, or what have you, corroborate what he was doing? That's complete nonsense. To be clear, christianity did precisely the same thing to the followers of Baal later on, twisting and corrupting that religion so that Baal became Beelzebub. In fact, cultural appropriation and propaganda are just kinda what christianity did back then; how can you say it wouldn't work when it did, on a much larger scale, for your own religion?

Quote:Yeah, we've been through this before so allow me to reiterate...the Christians were the ones being persecuted during the first and second century. What you are talking about happened hundreds of years later and doesn't even have the explanatory value to explain why is there 2 billion Christians in the world today, with no armies of violence....no crusading theocratic thugs....because of the acts of one man.

Given that the claims of christian persecution back then were, in the main, nothing more than fictional "piety porn" written by christian authors with little to no corroboration, that then got adopted and exaggerated as part of the christian narrative later on... yes, it explains it quite comprehensively.

Not that your argument works at all to begin with; those 2 billion current christians exist because their religion benefits from the extended period of cultural domination and indoctrination it enjoys... because of the violence they performed in the past. Modern christianity isn't some isolated and unconnected religion that just popped up fifty years ago, dude; it is the current iteration of a continuous movement that established itself to this point via violence and dishonest cultural appropriation. Not to mention, I wasn't just talking about the armies, but the missionaries and preachers... all the other people who helped spread and maintain christianity that weren't Jesus?

(November 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I'd like to see the entire passage then.

The paragraph before the passage in question is a list of calamities that have befallen the Jews. The passage immediately after is a further listing.

The passage with the mention of Jesus does not fit. If it is removed, the preceding passage and the following passage make perfect sense without the Jesus passage.

It's almost as if the passage does not fit....

Quote:Oh, he said that Hercules was crucified by Pontius Pilate...that is the only way it could be in the same context as you said, right?

Being a bit pedantic, aren't you?

I said the 'same kind of context'. Not identical.

Josephus mentions Hercules as a god/man that is worshiped by the people he is writing about, who believed he existed.

people just make fun of christianity and here is a clip from a show called black jesus.



and what do you think christians think about the show personally i like the show.



here is a little excerpt of why children shouldn't be religious.

(November 22, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I said the 'same kind of context'. Not identical.

Be careful saying "kind" around H_M ... he may well claim that you share his views on biology.

HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"? I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.