Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Drich]

Are you sure you aren't a sock puppet for "archaeologist," Drippy. Because you sound as stupid as him.

People did NOT journey from all over Judaea to get married in the fucking temple. This is an invention of yours. I know you make shit up all the time but really this time you have outdone yourself.

http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jew...-bible.htm

There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind.

BTW, this is a xtian site which explains the bullshit about jesus dying on some cross for some alleged sins.

---

I appearently made a mistake. where I said Herod ruled Galalee I was wrong. He ruled over Judea, that is why Christ grew up in galalee.

You have made so many I stopped counting ages ago.

riddle me this minnie. Who over saw the terms and conditions of the ketubbah? Was it the Groom? was it the brides Father? Or was it some third party who over saw and had the power to approve or deny a couples right to be married if said contract had not been full filled? IDK, maybe someone like a PRIEST?

Maybe you should read what you post and ask yourself does this completely support my arguement, or does it only reinforce what I have already said.

[Airyaman]

Can't be bothered to wade through thread, so just addressing the OP: I've read most of the typical "apologies" out there for this in the past. None were all that convincing imo, but hey, I'm skeptical more times than not.

It would not be so bad if it was just the dates, but the genealogies don't match well either. Then there's some differences as to where J&M came from and where they went afterwards. It just looks like one of the writers had bad information, somewhat like some news sources in modern times who get the story wrong (and some make retractions).

That's my problem with the whole idea of depending on some set of ancient books to tell me the story of who a god is/was: we never get to ask questions of the writers when we need clarity. Its really no different than interpreting any other work to try to hypothesize on meanings. And yet Christians in particular want us to trust in this Jesus character and give him our lives over to him when all we have is incomplete and likely inaccurate stories about him? Weird way the god of the universe chose to communicate with us.

You'd think he would go on twitter or something. At least.

[Statler Waldorf]

I think he wanted you to provide links, you know evidence and such.

No, that’s just a tactic employed by people when they are losing a debate; try to force your opponent to re-invent the wheel over and over again during the debate. Such information is available to anyone who wants to look it up.

42 authors mentioning Jesus within 150 years…

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, Jude, Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius, and Thallus.

10 authors mention Tiberius...

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum, and Luke

This means that both Jesus and Tiberius have 9 secular sources mentioning them. The Jewish carpenter living in Galilee is as well attested to by secular sources as the figurehead of the most powerful empire in the entire world; nothing short of remarkable.

You are lying, to put it plainly. There is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is the best theory that explains the diversity of life.

Where did I say that was not the majority view? It’s not a consensus though. You can find numerous experts with advanced degrees in the appropriate fields who reject common descent; you could not even find three experts with advanced degrees in the historical community who reject the existence of Jesus. The Jesus Myth is a far more extreme position than creationism.

That isn't a rebuttal

He didn’t make a point requiring rebuttal; I am perfectly justified in answering an assertion with an assertion.

Not exactly a great comparison seeing as we have evidence that the holocaust happened. 6 million jews don't just disappear into thin air. Also we have evidence that 'The Return of the Jedi' was a fictional movie.

And we have more historical attestation for Jesus of Nazareth than we do for Caesar Tiberius.

I think it would help everyone out here if you explained how he's being irrational.

It is irrational to be arbitrary or inconsistent in your reasoning and he is being both.

Inconsistencies

- He rejects the use of early Christian sources to establish the existence of Jesus but accepts the use of Roman sources to establish the existence of early Roman figures.
- He rejects the testimony of early church fathers in regards to Jesus and the martyrdom of Christians but then uses these same church fathers to establish the existence of Christian heresies in the early Church.
- He rejects the use of Josephus as a source for the existence of Jesus but then uses Josephus to establish other historical facts he finds convenient to his position (i.e. the governorship of Qirrinius)
- He rejects using Christian sources in regards to jesus but then uses Josephus (a Jewish source) in regards to the existence of John the Baptist (also a Jew).
- He claims we cannot know who wrote the New Testament gospels and epistles but then accepts the authorship of Josephus’ writings as actually being the historian Josephus without any external attestation to this authorship.
- He claims the New Testament is not well attested (having manuscripts dating to within 60 years of Jesus) but then appeals to the writings of Julius Caesar, Suetonius, and Tacitus which do not first appear until 900-1100 AD.


Arbritrariness

- He applies a different standard to the historicity of Jesus than any of historical figure.
- His criteria for the existence of Jesus is self-serving and not accepted by any practicing historian.

Get the picture?

And I didn't think jesus was mentioned anywhere outside the bible, but then again i don't study history much.

He’s mentioned by nine Biblical sources and 31 extra-biblical sources within the first 150 years.

We'll we know that JFK existed, we did see him get shot on TV

I didn’t, I am not that old. That’s also not proof, I saw John Malkovich get “shot” by Clint Eastwood on TV last night.

If only it were that simple

Unfortunately, it is.

Look up 'The Crusades' I think thats quite a lot of blood

I was born in the 20th Century; so again, no blood (but Christ’s) on these hands.

Hey, Waldork you dumb fuck. You do know...or should be told that your xtian thugs burned the libraries of antiquity but, thanks to Origen we do have a small sampling of some of the comments by Greco-Roman writers like Celsus - the work is Contra Celsus - to see what they thought of your early shithead brethren.

How do you know Christians burned any such libraries?

I must admit...Celsus nailed your sorry ass in Chapter 44.

This is quite amusing that you are now appealing to the words of early Church fathers; we do not have any of Celsus’ writings and Origen’s quotations of him were not available until the 3rd Century so the gospels are far more contemporary with Christ and far better attested to. It’s also quite amusing that not even Celsus believed that Jesus never existed. Fail.

He's a protestant fuckwad. You have to go to the witch trials, the 30 years war and the wars of the reformation, etc for their atrocities.

Simply because you were alive back then is no reason to assume that I was as well. No blood on these hands.

The 10/42 claim has been thoroughly shot down.

Non-sense.

I won't even go into the 42 number attributed to authors that mention Jesus, some of them are highly disputed.

You won’t go into it? How convenient!

I mean, please, Josephus is included in the 42.

Historians (including Ehrman) accept Josephus’ reference to Jesus as a legitimate source.

[hide]

But they got the 10 mentions for Tiberius incorrect by a factor of 10. oops...

“Factor of 10” obviously does not mean what you apparently think it means.

Well, it looks like the list was a bit short. There are actually 44 authors that mention Tiberius, including Tiberius himself.

44 is not a factor of 10 off from 10.

"The contemporary poet Horace (writing c. 21 BCE) mentions Tiberius multiple times and even writes to a military friend campaigning with Tiberius in the 3rd letter of book 1 of his Epistles.

You see, this is the problem when you pull all of your information from people’s blogs, you do not get the entire story. Horace’s mentioning of Tiberius actually comes from Suetonius’ writings about Horace; it never appears in any of Horace’s existing poetry. Of course Suetonius claiming that Horace mentioned Tiberius does not count as a second attestation to Tiberius.

Another contemporary, Cornelius Nepos , also mentions Tiberius’ first marriage in his Life of Atticus.

Actually nearly all of Cornelius Nepos’ writings are lost, most of what we have (including his mentioning of Tiberius) are other author’s allusions to what he wrote. Of course, just like with Horace, this does not count as a separate attestation to Tiberius.

Livy’s history of Rome, though the books dealing with the time of Tiberius are lost, still have book summaries preserved in later Periochae.

Obviously lost works that allegedly once existed do not count as attestation to Tiberius. This seems to be the case over and over again in this list. We have an author who allegedly mentions Tiberius but whose writings are only preserved by another author who is already counted on the list or who writes much later than 150 years after Tiberius. This does not count as multiple attestations to Tiberius. It was a valiant effort but unfortunately falls a bit short.

Kudos for trying!

Waldorf, I know of a few historical quotes that can be applied to you quite well:

Okie dokie.

Seneca the Younger - "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.” – Psalm 14:1 (ESV)

Buddha - “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”

“Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool
cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.
7 Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless,
is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
8 Like one who binds the stone in the sling
is one who gives honor to a fool.
9 Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard
is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
10 Like an archer who wounds everyone
is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard.[a]
11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit
is a fool who repeats his folly.”- Proverbs 26:6-11 (ESV)

Socrates - "Ordinary people seem not to realize that those who really apply themselves in the right way to philosophy are directly and of their own accord preparing themselves for dying and death."

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”- Romans 1:21-25 (ESV)

and not put all my faith in one of a million religions.

So you do not believe that 2+2= 4 because “4” is just one in an infinite number of other possible numbers?

You can not [sic] impress Waldork [sic] with facts.

You’ve yet to present any.

He is a flaming asshole who believes in a talking snake and a 6,000 year old universe for fuck's sake.

More qualified experts believe in a 6,000 year old Earth than believe Jesus never existed like you believe. That’s hilarious.

Just shit on him. It's all he deserves.

No, it’s all you can do because you have no arguments to back up your absurd positions.

[Mystical]

*opening a can of worms

So I've been watching your guys' debate with Waldorf for some time and surprisingly, he provided sources for what he believes. So I've taken it upon myself to look into those sources one at a time.

Can you gents please explain to me why you don't think Jesus is a historical figure or that he existed? Wikipedia seems pretty sure he did. And that scholars agree that he did.

Waldorf, can you review the two sources I've looked up so far and let me know why you believe that they should be trusted? One of them talks of the earth being flat, the other guy is an apologist. Why do you consider these sources to be sound historical sources?


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

Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity holds Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used in non-Christian contexts.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

[19] Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). "Introduction". In Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C.; Crossan, John D. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton Univ Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[20] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.

Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, born around the beginning of the first century, who died between 30 and 36 AD in Judea.[37][38] The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who reigned from 26 to 36 AD.[19] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere.[39][40][41]

The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians.[217][218][219] Supporters of the theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and to the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, which they use to challenge the veracity of the existing accounts of him.[220] Beginning in the 20th century, scholars such as G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory.[221][222][223] However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][224][225] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[16][17]

In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[226] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a document.[227][228] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[229]
Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[24] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[230] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[231][232][233] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[234]
Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[235][216][236] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[237][238] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[239]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
On Herod and the killing of the infants

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.[8][9] The single account of the Massacre comes in the Gospel of Matthew: it is not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels or by the well-known Roman Jewish historian, Josephus (37 – c. 100). The difference of historical opinion tends to align with whether or not the scholar in question views the New Testament narratives as historically valuable or not, with those crediting the New Testament as at least quasi-historical willing to accept the possibility, while those skeptical of the New Testament's historicity tending to doubt the massacre's occurrence.
Amongst those historians who doubt the massacre's historicity, Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders regard the story as part of a creative hagiography.[10] Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time and which was recorded by Josephus.[11] Other arguments against historicity include the silence of Josephus (who does record several other examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power, noting that he "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies")[12] and the views that the story is an apologetic device or a constructed fulfillment of prophecy.[13]
David Hill acknowledges that the episode "contains nothing that is historically impossible," but adds that Matthew's "real concern is ... with theological reflection on the theme of OT fulfillment".[14] Stephen Harris and Raymond Brown similarly contend that Matthew's purpose is to present Jesus as the Messiah, and the Massacre of the Innocents as the fulfillment of passages in Hosea (referring to the exodus), and in Jeremiah (referring to the Babylonian exile).[15][16] Brown also sees the story as patterned on the Exodus account of the birth of Moses and the killing of the Hebrew firstborn by Pharaoh.[16]


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...7864,d.eWU

f Theophilus, the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), is his Apology to Autolycus (Apologia ad Autolycum), a series of books defending Christianity written to a pagan friend.

He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth[17] and asserts that it is a flat surface covered by the heavens as by a domical vault.[18] He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to Cain,[19] the earth struck with terror refusing to drink it in. In addition, Theophilus misquotes Plato several times,[20] ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks,[21] and speaking of Pausanias as having only run a risk of starvation instead of being actually starved to death in the temple of Minerva.

His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are also numerous, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount,[26] a possible quotation from Luke 18:27,[18] and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men by whom the Holy Scriptures were written

Although Theophilus cites the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1), he does not speak of the incarnation of the Word in the person Jesus of Nazareth. Theophilus makes no mention of the name of Jesus or use the word Christ or the phrase Son of God. There is no explicit reference to a historical person Jesus or to the concept of the atoning sacrificial death of the Son of God.



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html

Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE.

He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."

[Minimalist]

No, it’s all you can do because you have no arguments to back up your absurd positions.

Says the idiot who believes in talking snakes!

Join the sane world and maybe we can talk. You clowns are for my personal entertainment.

[Mystical]

bump*

[Minimalist]

burp*

[Max_Kolbe]

When was Jesus born?

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-aki...-of-jesus/

[DeistPaladin]

Sorry I've been away for a bit.

Yes, we both know it was the fallacy of the red herring.

When your debate opponent demonstrates hypocrisy on the issue that is the crux of your argument, it's never irrelevant to point out the hypocrisy. You tout "scholarly consensus" in your arguments for The Historical Jesus but you reject scholarly consensus when it works against your mythology.

There is no reason to compare a scientific theory to historical facts.

True, biology is a hard science based on objective data and repeatable experiments. History is a soft science based partially on conjecture and piecing together what seems most likely to have actually happened (I know this because historians have said so). There is therefore more of a rational reason to debate history, especially ancient history, than there is to debate science.

Additionally, you believe the earth is 6000 years old, putting you in conflict not just with biology but with cosmology and history. We have stars in our night sky who's light took millions of years to reach us. Historians will tell you that we have civilizations that are older than 6000 years.

So, no, you don't get to talk about "scholarly consensus." At least not without being a hypocrite.

Secondly, I do not reject evolution because of any “lack of evidence”, I reject it because of evidence to the contrary.

There is none.

Evolution is not only the universally accepted theory among biologists, the entire field of study makes no sense except in light of evolution. Disputing it would be like disputing Germ Theory in the field of medicine.

Since when did rationality presuppose naturalism and why?

It's called "burden of proof".

The natural universe is all we experience during our waking hours. The claims of those who say they have experienced the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Every time we solve a mystery of the universe, we end up discarding long held supernatural explanations in favor of predictable, natural ones. To suggest that there is an unseen, undetected, yet-to-be-discovered supernatural realm is an extraordinary claim and requires the claimant to assume the burden of proof.

[Minimalist]

When was Jesus born?

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-aki...-of-jesus/

Gaius Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria until Late 7 or early 6 BC. He was succeeded by Publius Quinctilius Varus to whom fell the responsibility of crushing the revolts which broke out on the death of Herod the Great. Varus did so. There is an assumption that someone else was governor of Syria during the period 3 or 4 to 1 BC but there is no archaeological evidence to suggest this. Coins were minted by the local officials and we have no coins minted by another governor in that period. If we had those coins, we would know the name. Varus crushed the revolt, burned Sepphoris, and established the sons of Herod on their thrones. There is no indication that anyone jointly ruled with Herod who was a paranoid old fuck at the end.

The historical evidence and the numismatic evidence suggests that Varus' command was simply continued until Augustus' grandson was ready to be appointed Imperial Legatus ( governor) of Syria in 1 BC. The prolongation of a command was an old Roman tradition. They did not replace a successful commander in the middle of a war. They weren't stupid.

I realize that you think that all of history needs to be re-written in order to save your pious bullshit from the scrap heap it so richly deserves but other nations had histories and they are not dependent on your fairy tales.