(December 12, 2014 at 12:22 am)whateverist Wrote: You know what? I don't deserve your efforts

That is a true statement.

(December 12, 2014 at 9:59 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 12:22 am)whateverist Wrote: You know what? I don't deserve your efforts

That is a true statement.

You know what you can believe in the bible and jesus as much as you want. but it doesn't make it any true due to assertions it requires blind faith, but you know what i won't bother maybe to some other people they will read it and be like Hallelujah i see your wisdom and jesus is real. But i won't entertain you and say your wrong anymore because look for how much of a effort people tried to educate you in the previous thread, i want nothing to do with this thread.

I am curious to see how this goes, although I think that this is damn near impossible. And I'm one of those who think there was a historical figure at the origin of the cult.

First, we have to establish who we are talking about and find him in the historical and archeological records, as pointed out in part one. That was correct in what was needed, although the execution was sloppy. After that you have to track down the grave site, the supposed witnesses, and try and find some corroborating archeological evidence. And, given we don't know which claimant he is and the records are slim, finding the tomb is going to be hard enough finding corroboration is going to be damn near impossible.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: Because they weren't written by disciples? And they were written much to late to make any such claim. And it's that much too late part that makes them essentially worthless.

I will gladly answer this in part 3.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: Un huh, and because they didn't really know, and weren't really contemporary they made some big mistakes:

Let's begin with Mark:

Its author seems to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast). The author of Mark did not seem to know that you would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels[/url]
So Mark seems to have difficulties with anachronisms.

It depends on which translation you read....because after reading this one, there is no problem:

Mark 7:31: "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: How about Mathew:

Quote:Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[76] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well if Mark is wrong and Mathew copies Mark, then we can't trust Mathew either.

Nonsense. First, you have to prove that Mark is wrong, which you haven't done yet.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: What about Luke?

Quote:Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[86] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Uh oh. Copying from bad sources again. But it gets worse. He probable wasn't a companion of Paul's either:

Quote:Some scholars uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well I will put it to you this way; again, in the preface the author is acknowledging the fact that the information he is giving is being PASSED DOWN from eyewitnesses...so regardless, that is where the source of the information is from. Second, I'd like to know what did Act's say that contradicts Paul's letters? I don't want to click on links, I want YOU to tell me.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: What about John? Second had at best:
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[105][106] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[107] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[108][109] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Well, if the Gospel of John is based on a person who heard and followed Jesus, that would make the testimony credible, right? Remember, contemporary??

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: Funny, that they got the names right, but messed up basic geography. --- No wait? You're citing the synopsis of an unreviewed self published book, really? Really?

Well, the book as been out there for all to see, for at least the past 12 years..and the information that she gathered is also for all to see...and don't make it seem as if this is a special pleading issue either...a shoalin monk could do the pain staking research that she did and draw the same conclusion...it was unbiased research that any person could do and draw the same conclusion.

(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: Not really, no we can't. We can conclude that they were all written too late to be of much factual value and that the authors didn't know much about either the geography or the history of the time and places they wrote about.

So if they were written much later by people who had no connections to people that were there, how would they get the names right? Second, you gave one geographical concern regarding a chapter in Mark that really isn't a concern at all, and you are making that as the big white hope for your entire objection.

Nonsense.

On pages 429-30 of On The Historicity of Jesus, Carrier identifies 21 points of commonality between the jesus passion story in "mark" and Josephus "Jesus bar Ananus" tale in Book VI of the Jewish War.

And then the other two shitheads copied "mark" and added in their own details.

Quote:Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus-or the same tale known to Josephus.

It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark's entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):

1 Both are named Jesus.
2 Both come to .Jerusalem during a major religious festival.
3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple.
4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah.
5 Both then preach daily in the temple.
6 Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews.
7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed.
8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews.
9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple.
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges.
11 Both are beaten by the Jews.
12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor.
13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor.
14 During which both are asked to identify themselves.
15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense.
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans.
17 I n both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 . . . but doesn't (Mark); . . . but does (JW).
19 Both are finally killed by the Romans in Mark, by Mk execution; in the JW, by artillery).
20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die.
21 Both die with a loud cry.

Table 6. Parallels of Jesus 'Christ ' with Jesus ben Ananias
Given that Mark is essentially a Christian response to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish temple, it is more than a little significant that he chose this Jesus to model his own Jesus after.

Carrier does provide citations for the various passages but because of formatting problems with the e-book I cannot reproduce them here.
Therefore, for any who want to double check:

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-6.htm

Quote:" But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Anyone who wants to look at the gospel story can find it on their own. That shit is all over the place.

I always knew the bible was rubbish, but I was not prepared for just how laughable the gospels would be when I started looking into them properly.

Religious guys have either not read these things in any detail, or have no idea whatsoever how to objectively assess something.

It would be funny if they hadn't caused so much bloodshed.

Not about to do a line-by-line for this one (outstanding job, Jenny), but this bit leapt out at me:

Quote:Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.

This is so bad, it isn't even wrong.

So, you feel there's no such thing as historical writing? By your standard, if I were to write about the Great Hunger (the Irish 'famine') - a period I know quite a lot about - you would necessarily conclude that I lived during that time.

Boru

His_Majesty Wrote:So, now that I'’ve successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth'’s existence in human history, …now I will make the case..

Talk about building houses on sand! You can't just point to a hundred page thread and bald assert that you've successfully done anything in that thread without pointing to the point at which you believe you successfully did "it". Please, for the love of intellectual honestly, show me where you believe you "succeeded at making a case for and successfully defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth's existence in human history."

Thanks, Luckie. That looks better.

(December 12, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Thanks, Luckie. That looks better.

I'm happy to be of service
*salutes Min