The oxford English dictionary classes jesus as a non-historical character.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html

Quote:In conclusion, while Christian apologists may find proof of Jesus as a historical figure in a few Classical authors, the professional Editors and Contributors of this long standing "Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World" would strongly disagree!

(June 5, 2015 at 12:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: 1-There you go, inventing conspiracists again.

It was your stupid idea. At least own it.

Quote:2-Evidence that both the screwtape letters and -the letters supposedly written by paul- are in the format of...letters? You don't think that's a fairly benign observation? I would think it strange if they weren't...since that was the authors intent(-at least- the second time I've had to correct you on this count alone).

A benign observation? Well, aren't you a quick learner!

Quote:3-I specifically mentioned that we could (and should) disregard acts on numerous occasions - mostly because it's full of obvious myth and legend and we're trying to find us some historical paul...whatever that means. Does that mean we're done..that once acts is gone the rest is really real (or that from that point forward we have to forget that acts exists), that there could be no further, subtler misinformation (for reasons which are, frankly..legion) within, say...these supposed letters?

"Disregard Acts"? Meaning? Should we consider the possibility that Acts has any value for historical reconstruction? If Acts places Paul in Rome, and other sources agree that Paul wound up in Rome, is it likely that somebody who was a prominent Christian convert and missionary named Paul ended up in Rome? Why or why not?

Quote:
You were saying? -And speaking of what you were saying...at what point will trading barbs or calling me a moron help you to establish the historicity of paul....whichever paul you have in mind? How does that work>?

I'd rather trade barbs than repeat myself to a dolt who still refuses to acknowledge that I've precisely stated "whichever Paul" numerous times, to the point that you just keep reiterating how pathetic wasting any more effort on you really is.

(June 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The oxford English dictionary classes jesus as a non-historical character.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html

Quote:In conclusion, while Christian apologists may find proof of Jesus as a historical figure in a few Classical authors, the professional Editors and Contributors of this long standing "Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World" would strongly disagree!

How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

(June 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The oxford English dictionary classes jesus as a non-historical character.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html

How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

?!?!?!
Where did you get that piece of info?

Just the other day, Min said there were a bunch of tombs with the name Jesus on them, found in Israel... among many other names, of course, as would be expected...

(June 5, 2015 at 6:39 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

?!?!?!
Where did you get that piece of info?

Just the other day, Min said there were a bunch of tombs with the name Jesus on them, found in Israel... among many other names, of course, as would be expected...

As we have discussed several times the letter "J" didn't exist before an Italian guy created it around 1520.  It didn't make its way into written documents until the early 1600s.  Therefore all "J" words were invented after that time.  So what did they call Jews before the letter "J" was invented?

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

That's one of the ways you can determine if a story is BS.  It's like the Book of Mormon saying that steel existed in the ancient Western Hemisphere.    

(June 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The oxford English dictionary classes jesus as a non-historical character.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html

How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

Peter's Aramaic name was Simon and later Kepha (rock). Later, it became Petros (Greek for rock) and finally Peter in English. Pierre in French, I think.

Mary was probably Miriam in Aramaic.

Jesus' name was Yeshua in Aramaic...which eventually became Jesus in modern English.

Is that your PRIMARY reason for rejecting Christianity?

Quote: How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

"J" as a separate English letter did not exist.  The muslims still call the fucker Issa.  The Greeks called him Iesou.

Gaius Julius Caesar was known as Iulius Caesar and Brutus was Marcus Iunius Brutus. 

For that matter, "W" did not exist until the Middle Ages, either.  But they got as close as they could on the sounds.

(June 5, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: How could "Jesus" be a historical figure when the name didn't exist until the 16th or 17th Century?  

Peter's Aramaic name was Simon and later Kepha (rock). Later, it became Petros (Greek for rock) and finally Peter in English. Pierre in French, I think.

Mary was probably Miriam in Aramaic.

Jesus' name was Yeshua in Aramaic...which eventually became Jesus in modern English.

Is that your PRIMARY reason for rejecting Christianity?

It's a BS religion based off of some identical ideas found in Zoroastrianism, Hindu, Greek, and other ancient religions.   Some of the major characters have more aliases than a gang of bank robbers have.  BTW, there was no real reason to have changed the characters' names other than for the writers to show that the story was a fraud.  A lot of the minor characters seem to have retained their original names without any ill effect.  It's like renaming George Washington "Virginia Hillbilly".  Why would a sane person change the name of the "son of God" unless it was to make a mockery of him?  Didn't they think that 17th Century dummies wouldn't like "Yeshua"?

And Zeus is still Zeus.

-Except, again, that it wasn't.  It is your imagination which leads you to conspiracies where none exist, and where none need exist....apparently.  If you can't accept this simple fact then you aren't having a conversation with me, no matter who you decide to quote tag.  I can accept that the legendary, the mythical, the fictive, and the literary found their way into the text -as we see it there today- without any need for a grand or petty conspiracy, personally.  I don't have to wonder about the motives of the authors to see that this is what happened, because I have the book right here..same as you, same as anybody.....

-So, we both agree that it is benign (do you accept that -my- position on the matter, rather than your own impositions, is proven to your satisfaction?)...and yet you've lost your shit.


-Disregard acts, meaning stories about distance healing poly blends aren't reliable as history -not even when they agree with other, more reliable things-.  Agreed?  Depends on those "other sources".  If, by this, you means "other parts of the narrative" you are discussing narrative continuity, not history.  

-"Whichever paul" is precisely equal to no paul.  I'll need you to contain yourself and not balk when I start snipping tidbits out. Or, I can introduce you to a guy named paul right now and we can be done with it?   Which -of the numerous candidate pauls- proposed by those who believe in pauls are you comfortable claiming confidence for? I assume we're only discussing "early" or "authentic" pauls....but the fields still pretty wide at this point, there's more than one paul even within those "undisputed epistles". That rules out acts (and just about anything -other- than the genuine epistles) as historically informative -even when it agrees with those epistles. A person cannot, for example, say "early paul" and then point to things beyond that very limited text, supposedly written in his own hand, as though they supported it. They don't..and can't, or else we've left "early paul" and moved on to a different category of paul.

So, you see, "Paul of the seven epistles" is a non-answer, it's responding with "anypaul". When you're done pissing and moaning, I'll be right here, to discuss all those pauls. Maybe we'll find the historic one together where better men have failed for centuries?