Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Searching4truth]

Christians are more logical than me? What are you, 2? Ill give you the apostles that knew Christ even though I was talking mostly about the OT. But the four gospels were "written according to" so those dont count buster. Historical inaccuracies:
-Slaughter of the innocents
-Herod died in 4 B.C.E. which is ten years before the Quirinius' census which is stated by the gospel ACCORDING TO Luke is the time when Jesus was born... however.... there was no Roman census during the reign of Herod( that's a two for one
- the crucifixion happened during Passover ( which would have been against Jewish laws
-the crucifixion was unknown to the Christians until as late as the second century
- There was no release of a prisoner among Romans
I could keep going but I don't need to. It's not worth it and you probably won't read it anyways. I read through the stories and the primitive stories of the Bible. I've studied other religions that pre-date Christianity and ironically have the same story lines. The gospels have borrowed stories and are parallel to other sources. You're wasting your time. Open your eyes

[Minimalist]

Ill give you the apostles that knew Christ

I wouldn't give him that. If there is no evidence for fucking jesus there is no evidence for his "merry men" either.

[Statler Waldorf]

Please never change... I so enjoy submitting your posts to fstdt.com.

Not going to happen. My friends think you’re a riot, so it’s symbiotic.

Christians are more logical than me?

Yup.

What are you, 2?

Nope.

even though I was talking mostly about the OT.

You never said the Old Testament. Even if that were what you were referring to it is still wrong.

-Slaughter of the innocents

Why is that a historical inaccuracy?

-Herod died in 4 B.C.E. which is ten years before the Quirinius' census which is stated by the gospel ACCORDING TO Luke is the time when Jesus was born... however.... there was no Roman census during the reign of Herod( that's a two for one

This is inaccurate, in the original Greek Luke never actually says that the census took place while Quirinius was Governor of Syria. Additionally, there is actually evidence to support a census taking place near the time of Jesus’ birth in 6-4 B.C..

- the crucifixion happened during Passover ( which would have been against Jewish laws

You’re going to have to elaborate because I see no reason as to why the Romans could not crucify someone on Passover.

-the crucifixion was unknown to the Christians until as late as the second century

This is false; it is mentioned in the gospels which are 1st Century documents.

- There was no release of a prisoner among Romans

This is also false, there is strong evidence suggesting that the Romans would in fact release prisoners, even on Passover. Josephus records that the Roman governor Albinus released prisoners. The Mishnah also tells us that Jews would sacrifice a lamb so that a prisoner could go free on the Passover. The gospel writers would not fabricate a tradition like this; they would have been well aware of such traditions and would have accurately described them.

I could keep going but I don't need to.

I wish you would.

It's not worth it and you probably won't read it anyways.

You’re selling yourself short; I always read what people reply with, even Min.

I've studied other religions that pre-date Christianity and ironically have the same story lines.

Such as?

The gospels have borrowed stories and are parallel to other sources.

Such as?

---

If there is no evidence for fucking jesus

[Searching4truth]

I never said NT either.... you assumed and you know what assuming makes you, right? the slaughter of the innocents is a historical inaccuracy because it never happened. I figured that would be implied. but I see you have Christian brain damage. I don't carry around an original manuscript bible in Greek so I have to use the four translations I do have which all confirm in Luke 2:1-6 that there was a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, Joseph registered for it when Mary was with child. pretty plain and simple.... do you not read your own fantasy tale? The Sanhedrin were forbidden to meet over Passover. they would have violated Judaic law and we're forbidden to meet at night. There's no verification of a significant crucifixion in the writings of historians such as Philo, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, or Publius Petronius.
Horus-virgin birth, baptised at 30, born in manger, crucified-rose three days later
Attis-virgin birth, savior slain for mankind, body eaten by followers, cricigied amd rose 3 days later
Zoroaster-virgin birth, baptised in river, tempted in wilderness, restored blind mans sight, cast out demons
Glycon- raised dead, spoke in tongues, healed the sick
Heracles-attemped murder as infant, descended into Hades
Dionysus-virgin birth on Dec 25, manger, rode on a donkey, sacred king killed for purification, alpha omega
Romulus
Odysseus
Buddha

[Minimalist]

Tough titties, Waldork. No first century Greco-Roman or Jewish writer ever heard of your silly god boy. This is your problem. You believe...passionately....in horseshit.

[Brian37]

Ill give you the apostles that knew Christ

I wouldn't give him that. If there is no evidence for fucking jesus there is no evidence for his "merry men" either.

But if we pretend they did, actual physical men existing, leader or minions, would not make magic babies real or surviving rigor mortis real.

Arguing over Jesus existing, or Betheham or Josephus as a "historian" is fucking stupid. It would be like arguing that Superman is real because we can see him fly around New York City in movies.

We can prove the existence of George Washington, but no sane person goes around claiming that he farted Lamborghinis out of his ass.

[Statler Waldorf]

the slaughter of the innocents is a historical inaccuracy because it never happened.

You know this how?

I don't carry around an original manuscript bible in Greek so I have to use the four translations I do have which all confirm in Luke 2:1-6 that there was a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, Joseph registered for it when Mary was with child. pretty plain and simple.... do you not read your own fantasy tale?

Well let’s go with what Luke actually wrote in the Greek. What he wrote does not necessarily have to be translated that way.

The Sanhedrin were forbidden to meet over Passover. they would have violated Judaic law and we're [sic] forbidden to meet at night.

Jesus was executed on Passover Eve, and the day of preparation as observed by the Sadducees. This is supported by the Babylonian Talmud which states that Jesus was killed on Passover Eve, and makes no objection to the timing of this in regards to Jewish law.

There's no verification of a significant crucifixion in the writings of historians such as Philo, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, or Publius Petronius.

Why should there be? Jesus and his execution are mentioned by several of these sources though. That’s more than I would even expect considering the region Jesus lived in.

Horus-virgin birth, baptised at 30, born in manger, crucified-rose three days later

That is actually false. Horus was not born of a virgin, his mother Isis was not a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. The Myth of Horus never says he was born in a manger. Horus also was never baptized. Horus was never crucified either (the myth of Horus predates the invention of crucifixion), nor was he ever resurrected (there is no account of Horus even being killed).

Attis-virgin birth, savior slain for mankind, body eaten by followers, cricigied [sic] amd rose 3 days later

That is also false. Attis was not born of a virgin, Attis grew from an almond which had been placed in his mother’s bosom after she picked it from an almond tree that grew from Zeus’ discarded penis (to say this somehow resembles the virgin birth account in the New Testament is laughable). Attis also was never crucified but actually castrated himself under a pine tree. Attis’ body was preserved by the goddess Sebelius (not resurrected and not three days later), and this portion of the myth does not first appear until 150 A.D., so it postdates Christianity anyways. The other portions of the Attis myth that resemble Christianity do not appear until the 4th Century A.D., so they also postdate Christianity.

Zoroaster-virgin birth, baptised in river, tempted in wilderness, restored blind mans sight, cast out demons

I could confirm none of this concerning the life of Zoroaster. Seems to be ultimately irrelevant though since most of what we know of Zoroaster comes from the Dēnkard which dates to the 9th Century A.D. and the Shāhnāmeh which dates to between the 9th and 12 Century A.D..

Glycon- raised dead, spoke in tongues, healed the sick

Glycon was a snake god who was first worshipped as a physical snake. I could find no mention of him ever speaking in tongues or healing the sick. He was a god of fertility and was believed to be able to make infertile women pregnant. This bears no similarity with Christianity.

Heracles-attemped murder as infant, descended into Hades

Yes, Heracles’ step-mother Juno tried to kill him when he was an infant by placing a serpent in his crib. I am not sure how this is supposed to be similar to King Herod trying to kill Jesus with his soldiers. I can find no mention of Heracles descending into Hades.

Dionysus-virgin birth on Dec 25, manger, rode on a donkey, sacred king killed for purification, alpha omega

Dionysus was not born of a virgin, Zeus- disguised as a human- had physical sex with the princess Semele. There is no reference to his birth being on December 25 (which would be irrelevant anyways because the Bible never says Jesus was born on December 25). There is no mention of him ever being a sacred king killed for purification or being called the Alpha and Omega.

Romulus

What about him?

Odysseus

What about him?

Buddha

What about him?

No first century Greco-Roman or Jewish writer ever heard of your silly god boy.

That’s actually false (even though you have done nothing to demonstrate why we require such a standard), Josephus mentions him and Josephus was a 1st Century Jewish writer. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger were 1st Century figures and all mention him as well- you are so horrible at this. I am so glad we live in a world where people like you are not taken seriously.

But if we pretend they did, actual physical men existing, leader or minions, would not make magic babies real or surviving rigor mortis real.

Who said it did?

Arguing over Jesus existing, or Betheham or Josephus as a "historian" is fucking stupid.

No it’s not. It proves that atheists will believe anything, no matter how unsupported or fringe as long as it is self-serving to their atheism.

We can prove the existence of George Washington,

Just as we can prove the existence of the historical Jesus; you and I both know that If it were convenient to their position, many atheists would deny the existence of even George Washington.

[Minimalist]

Josephus TF is a forgery....obvious to anyone without an overwhelming desire to have some reference....however idiotic...in an ancient text to his godboy.

Without Eusebius' great fraud there would be nothing at all.

BTW, Josephus was not a contemporary of your boy. Philo, who was, never heard of the fuck, either.

[DeistPaladin]

This is supported by the Babylonian Talmud which states that Jesus was killed on Passover Eve, and makes no objection to the timing of this in regards to Jewish law.

The Talmud contains a 4th century entry about A Yeshua (not necessarily THE) who was executed after a 40 day trial. This particular Yeshua had five disciples but none of the names are familiar. He was politically powerful with ties to the government, which the Gospel character never had. Yeshua was a common name and this doesn't seem to be the one you're looking for.

Same problem with the Josephan reference. Yeshua bar Damneus is not the Gospel character.

Pliny doesn't mention Jesus, only Christians. Seutonius doesn't mention Jesus, only a Chrestus who was causing problems in Rome in the mid-1st century. Tacitus is the strongest piece of evidence, only showing tampering and being so late and oblique that it doesn't even mention Jesus by name.

[Statler Waldorf]

Josephus TF is a forgery....

Ehrman accepts both references by Josephus as valid; so fail.

Without Eusebius' great fraud there would be nothing at all.

Again, this is not accepted by historians. You’ll believe anything won’t you?

BTW, Josephus was not a contemporary of your boy. Philo, who was, never heard of the fuck, either.

Nice try at moving the goalposts, you simply said 1st Century Jewish writers never mentioned Jesus, and yet Josephus was a 1st Century Jewish writer who mentioned Jesus. Fail again.

The Talmud contains a 4th century entry about A Yeshua (not necessarily THE) who was executed after a 40 day trial. This particular Yeshua had five disciples but none of the names are familiar. He was politically powerful with ties to the government, which the Gospel character never had. Yeshua was a common name and this doesn't seem to be the one you're looking for.

This fails for two reasons. Firstly, the objection that is being refuted was that the Jews would not execute anyone on the Eve of Passover, so even if this is not the same Jesus it still refutes that claim. Secondly, although certain references to Jesus in the Talmud are debatable this one (Sanhedrin 43a) is widely accepted as referencing the Biblical Jesus by even the most skeptical scholars (i.e. Lauterbach), so again you’re arguing for an extremist position that actual historians do not adhere to.

Same problem with the Josephan reference. Yeshua bar Damneus is not the Gospel character.

Again, even skeptical scholars such as Ehrman accept the Josephus’ references as being valid. You’re going to have to do better than simply touting your own biased personal opinion as being the accepted position. Get to work.

Pliny doesn't mention Jesus, only Christians.

This is incorrect. Pliny states that Christians refused to worship the emperor and would only worship “Christus”. Not only this but historians also use Pliny to support the historicity of Jesus because if Jesus were simply a fabrication we’d expect Pliny to mention that Christians were not even following the teachings of a real person, and yet he does not. These Roman sources all held great contempt for Christians and yet not a single one of them even bothers alleging that Jesus never really existed.

Seutonius [sic] doesn't mention Jesus, only a Chrestus who was causing problems in Rome in the mid-1st century.

That’s also incorrect; this Chrestus that Suetonius mentions is the leader of the Messianic Jews who were expelled from Rome by Claudias. This event is also supported by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Of course Jesus of Nazareth was the only Chrestus that Christians followed so we know who Suetonius is referring to. The onus is upon the extremist to demonstrate that there was in fact another Christ who was being followed by the early Roman Christians when they were expelled from Rome.

only showing tampering

Demonstrate tampering took place.

and being so late and oblique that it doesn't even mention Jesus by name.

If it did mention him by name I am sure it’d conveniently be because of “tampering”. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that allied forces “tampered” with the footage of thousands of murdered Jews in the Holocaust. Ridiculous believes give rise to ridiculous rationalizations.