HM were you there when jesus was resurrected.
Did you see it?
How do you know it to be true outside believing and having faith it did happen.
if you say the bible or many of its badly written entries you are wrong.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote: And what is even more hilarious is that you gave the link to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html,and in that link, the author is citing Josephus' work which mentions Philo, but Josephus was not a contemporary to Philo...Josephus was around 13 at the time of Philo's death...yet Josephus' work is being used as a source for Philo's life??? So where did Josephus get his information from regarding Philo when he WROTE his Antiquities , which is the same book he used when he mentioned Jesus, which you reject because Jospehus never met Jesus...but when he mentions Philo, whom he also never met...that is ok?? 

The biggest double freakin' standard I've ever witnessed.

Nailed it - right down to the roflol! Go, prophet, go!

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You remembered the bombing tho...they remembered the Resurrection tho. You don't have to remember every little detail, but the jest of it was there was a bombing in OKC.

The stories of the resurrection, however, show a distinct evolution as they were subject to embellishment. The earliest gospel (Mark) doesn't mention a resurrection at all (at least not in its earliest form). From there, the stories get grander and grander until we get to John (60-70 years later) wherein Jesus is the devine poobah who pops out of the tomb, shouting 'ta dah!'

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: That is you..everyone is different...Paul remembered, you didn't.

Paul remembered the resurrection? Interesting concept since he wasn't there and never even knew Jesus

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You have a shitty memory, apparently.

Or maybe you just missed the entire point that memory is entirely subjective.

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: True, I gotcha...but the main idea is that there was a bombing in OKC...no one is disputing that fact...and likewise; the main idea was that Jesus Resurrected, and no one is disputing that..at least, not the early church.

Actually, the early church was filled will all sorts of 'heresies' that there was no resurrection or that it was only a spiritual resurrection. etc. The resurrection-winners were just the ones who were most successful at kicking the shit out of the others.

Wow. We started out with Josephus et al. and now we're on to discussing whether the hearsay of Paul is "really really twoo." You believe that Paul probably learned significant facts about Jesus from Peter, but you don't have any evidence that he did; that's just your belief. Is it wrong or right? There's no way to know.

However, there's a larger problem here. In part 1 you're trying to prove that a conjectural "Jesus the man" who was a first century rabbi and died by crucifixion. This Jesus is an extrapolation based on the Gospels and other documents. However, these documents don't describe a "Jesus the man," they describe a miracle working Messiah. So this "Jesus the man" is a separate fiction created out of these documents. But you're not trying to prove the existence of an ordinary man; the evidence required to prove the existence of an ordinary man is different from that used to demonstrate a miracle worker. I fully expect in part 2 or whatever for you to use the case for the existence of an ordinary man, "Jesus the man," as supporting evidence for "Jesus the miracle worker." You've got two separate Jesuses, one that meets a lesser standard, and the Jesus that is actually described by the Gospels, "Jesus the miracle worker." You can't just swap in the "Jesus the man" case when you start arguing for "Jesus the miracle worker" as they are two very different things. The statement that the vast majority of historians believe in "Jesus the man" cannot simply be lifted out of that context and transplanted into a case for "Jesus the miracle worker" as if the support of those historians for the former was good enough for the latter. You would be equivocating on who you mean by the name "Jesus" — in this phase, you've proved a man, not a miracle worker. Those are two separate arguments. Trying to use the case for the man as evidence for the miracle worker is fallacious because you would be switching horses mid-stream, and that's invalid. That's the fallacy of equivocation.

What would good evidence for a miracle worker be? Certainly not the horseshit you've trotted out so far. I would expect eye witnesses, and none of what you've presented so far is an eye witness. And you know the problems in claiming that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses without my even mentioning them. The three synoptic Gospels are all anonymous. (I note that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof already by demanding we prove that the Gospels attributed to Matthew and John weren't actually written by them. Nice try. The burden of proving that they were so written is on you.) So we're left with John as the only potential eye witness, and that's a very weak case. But good luck proving that John was actually written by the disciple John.

As to the "Jesus the man" argument, thanks for the entertainment, but that argument can't be used to support the existence of "Jesus the miracle worker." You'll just have to start over.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: Don't use my name again in that condescending way --doing that is a concession you have no real argument, it's like leaving your trousers unzipped.

The question is not if you can remember 20 years ago, but if it were important to the world would you wait 20 years to say so.

Again, for the third time..who are you to tell someone when they should write something? He wrote it when he wanted to write it, plain and simple...and by the time he actually did write it, Christianity had already spread miles and miles away from where it originated. So again, it is not up to Jenny to tell someone when they should write something. You have no authority in this or any other matter like it.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: Actually no. The more emphasis you put on a memory the less reliable your memory is. We are story tellers and we humans.

Well...yet, there are many believers that have memorized verses in the bible to a tee...you can fight the fact that you are WRONG as much as you'd like, Jenny, but it doesn't change the fact that you are simply wrong.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='808959' dateline='1417585795']
Once again the point is not how well you remember 20 years ago but how likely it is that you are making it up if you suddenly refer to things twenty years ago that you never mentioned before.

First off, again...you are failing to distinguish the difference between when he WROTE it and when he actually preached it...the book of Acts describes in detail Paul's beginning in Christ and all of the sermons and trials that he went through AS he preached the Word...and this was BEFORE he wrote anything...he had a 20 year head start preaching the Word at various locations throughout the empire, before he wrote anything...so again; you are wrong...and your wrongfulness is started to get on Esquil's level...and that is saying a lot

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: oooooh Bullshit. Scary cuss word!. Philoactually wrote things himself. And Josephus, knows of him and discusses him in an unforged paragraph.

And Paul actually wrote things himself too...and both Josephus and Paul knew OF Jesus and discussed him despite a certain part of Josephus being forged later.

But this is as blatant of a double standard as I've seen...as you were just arguing me down a few pages back about how how contemporary sources are so important and none of the sources that I presented met Jesus...but when it comes to Philo, oh, the skeptics hat comes off and despite no contemporary accounts being mentioned for him, it is ok to come out the closet and believe that??

Bullshit.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote:

Quote:"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Who is that? Josephus? No, he doesn't account, he didn't know Philo of Alexandria. He never met the guy.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='808959' dateline='1417585795']
Here are 25 historians we know of in the first century AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1s...historians

I said IN THAT TIME AND IN THAT LOCATION. A historian in China wouldn't have a clue about what is going on in the 30'sAD Palenstine.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: But the really important one for this discussion is Justis of Tiberius because he was living and writing in Galilee during the purported lifetime of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_of_Tiberias Yet he never mentions Jesus. None of his histories is extant, but they were available in the 9th century and a Christian historian is disappointed to notice that Jesus is not mentioned.

Little is known about his life, except as told by his political and literary enemy Josephus Flavius. [1]

It is not clear as to whether Justus was an actual historian AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME AREA that Jesus lived. So again...you are unable to provide adequate sources that is being asked of you.

You are playing the role of "super skeptic" with things you don't necessarily agree with...but refusing to use the same line of reasoning when it comes to other things...this is called the taxi cab fallacy..

Apparently 'The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy' is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or world-view in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy. Some say that such practice lacks logical consistency and is therefore a logical fallacy. http://somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/...llacy.html

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: Again. Philo, like Josephus actually wrote things.

Paul wrote things, too. Taxi cab fallacy.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: Because they weren't signed and the traditional authors weren't added until later. Duh.

No, you said "they weren't even written down by those eyewitnesses", which is a claim of knowledge, when in fact, you don't know...for all you know they could have been written down by the authors whom all four were attributed too.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: If no one writes a thing till twenty years later, especially if it is of general importance, it probably didn't happen. What more needs to be said?

Again, as mentioned in this very thread...just because he didn't write it down until 20 years later doesn't mean he wasn't spreading the WORD as a Christian journeyman in that 20 year time-span...the word was getting spread..in fact, that is EXACTLY what the book of Acts describe

(December 3, 2014 at 1:49 am)Jenny A Wrote: Good for you. Explain dust becoming man. Seriously. I don't know how life came about. WTF has that got to do with proof of the historical Jesus?

It has to do with drawing a parrallel between what you are claiming is extraoridinary on the Christian view, and what atheists (and mostly naturalists) actually believe...and it is clear to me as to which view is more absurd...but we can drop that topic here, though.

You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

(December 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

Already happened.

(December 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

(December 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

Nope, I assume. I have stopped reading his diatribe at the same time you have. But I'm pretty sure he hasn't. At least going by the amount of

It's obvious this won't end in agreement. I know you're waiting for us all to agree before moving on, but that's not happening. Just move on.

A poll: All those who remain unconvinced say