The rapture is finally here again!

[Minimalist]

Actually, what he said was

Well, the non-Christian or secular evidence for his existence is scant and in most cases has been shown to have been manipulated by the good ole church.

You should strive to quote accurately, Chap.


A single, early to mid first-century report by a Greco-Roman-Jewish source which mentioned anything remotely resembling your boy would be enough for me to accept that there was at least some guy claiming to be god.
But you don't have that. Even a report of a rumor of a dead criminal coming back from the dead would do it...but alas, no luck.

What you do have is either a) the ramblings of believers....and every religion has that and I'm sure you would be the first to claim that all other religions are full of shit, too; or b) forgeries by later xtian writers seeking to make up for the glaring lack of reference to your boy in the earlier histories.[/quote]

In either case, you are in deep trouble in this debate.

[Chapabel]

Actually, what he said was

Well, the non-Christian or secular evidence for his existence is scant and in most cases has been shown to have been manipulated by the good ole church.

You should strive to quote accurately, Chap.


A single, early to mid first-century report by a Greco-Roman-Jewish source which mentioned anything remotely resembling your boy would be enough for me to accept that there was at least some guy claiming to be god.
But you don't have that. Even a report of a rumor of a dead criminal coming back from the dead would do it...but alas, no luck.

What you do have is either a) the ramblings of believers....and every religion has that and I'm sure you would be the first to claim that all other religions are full of shit, too; or b) forgeries by later xtian writers seeking to make up for the glaring lack of reference to your boy in the earlier histories.

In either case, you are in deep trouble in this debate.
[/quote]


What about the writings of Cornelius Tactitus? He was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Also, lets not forget Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Suetonius. So we are to assume that ALL secular writings that mention Jesus have been " manipulated " by the church? Right...

[DeistPaladin]

What about the writings of Cornelius Tactitus? He was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Also, lets not forget Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Suetonius. So we are to assume that ALL secular writings that mention Jesus have been " manipulated " by the church? Right...

Tacitus: This is the strongest piece of evidence for a historical Jesus, relatively speaking. It is late (2nd century), oblique (doesn't mention Jesus by name), brief (mentions only that the Christian founder was crucified, something he might have just heard from them) and contains an error (calls Pilate a "procurator", a title that was given to later governors, possibly indicting the whole passage was a later interpolation).

Pliny the Younger: Says nothing about Jesus.

Lucian: Well into the second century

Mara Bar-Serapion: Says the Jews killed a "wise king". That's it. No name. No specifics. He could have been talking about the Selucids for all we know.

Thallus: We don't have the works of Thallus. The quotation comes to us from a Christian source in the 3rd century. We have absolutely no idea what Thallus actually wrote.

Seutonius: Says nothing about Jesus.

[Minimalist]

What about the writings of Cornelius Tactitus? He was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Also, lets not forget Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Suetonius

Tacitus was a second century writer and his work shows clear evidence of tampering. No ancient writer, xtian or otherwise, quotes his comment about Nero and the xtians. A fair sampling of the Tacitus reference appears in Sulpicius Severus' Chronica, a 5th century work in which he does not cite Tacitus as his source. The only existing manuscript of Tacitus was recently subjected to ultraviolet light and shows that the original word was "Chrestianos" ( followers of Chrestus) not "Christianos" (followers of Christ.) This actually brings Tacitus into line with Suetonius...see below.

Pliny the Younger speaks of Xtians - not "Jesus." Moreover, Pliny tells a tale which would frighten the living piss out of xtians. He notes:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

So much for the "heroic martyr" myth!

Lucian was a mid second century playwright and dates from a time when xtians became numerous enough to be noticed by the establishment. Lucian makes fun of them. You left out Celsus who blasted xtians without the humor but he was also late 2d century.

I'm glad you mentioned Mara bar Serapion because it is as clear a instance of xtian desperation to find their godboy in the books as anything.

Here is the reference:

Or the Jews by the death of their wise king because from that same time their kingdom was taken away?

No mention of Jesus...or Christ...or anything. What you may not know....or choose to forget in any case... is that when Marcus Antonius finally got Herod to the throne of Judaea in 37 BC he did so by evicting the Parthians who were supporting the Hasmonean king Antigonus II Mattathias. Antigonius was the last Hasmonean king and certainly many Jews regarded Herod as little more than a Roman puppet. At any rate, whether it be by Antony's order or Herod's, Antigonius was killed to solidify Herod's throne. We don't need any "jesus" in here who, btw, wasn't the "king" of anything.

Thallus: As D-P notes, Thallus' works are not extant. We know of him only through that superb xtian liar, Eusebius and anything he says needs to be taken cum grano salis....to lapse into Latin.


Suetonius: A junior officer on the staff of Pliny the Younger while he was governor of Asia Minor he would also have known Tacitus who was a friend of Pliny's. Suetonius, in Life of Claudius writes of one "Chrestus" ( a common Greek name meaning "Good") causing trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius which was, unfortunately for you, a few years too late for your godboy. Nonetheless, that simple fact never stops xtians from claiming that Chrestus was Christus! Desperation again. There is another reference in Life of Nero in which Suetonius does mention xtians as being members of a new superstition which were punished along with drunken charioteers and crooked innkeepers. No mention of the Great Fire which presumably he might have heard about from his friend Tacitus. But alas....no mention.

You know, when you trot this stuff out around here you are not dealing with a Chautauqua tent full of Baptists who are going to fall down on the ground shouting "praise jesus" at your every word because they desperately want their fairy tales to be true also. Here, you had better be in position to back up what you say, sport.

[chatpilot]

Chapabel wrote: "Actually, there is evidence...it's in the Bible as well as secular writings. Try again."

The BIble? Are you serious? This book has more inconsistencies than a man with a low sperm count trying to impregnate a woman. Regarding secular writings I made a broad statement and DP and Min were kind enough to expound on the subject more amply for you. By the way, welcome to the forums.

[BillyWarhol]

I Hope dat don't interfere with our Canadian May Two Four Weekend!!

Yet another dumb ass prophesying the end of the world and the coming of Christ for his saints! According to Harold Camping a so called biblical scholar the coming of the Lord will be on May 21, 2011

[Chapabel]

---

What about the writings of Cornelius Tactitus? He was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Also, lets not forget Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Suetonius

Tacitus was a second century writer and his work shows clear evidence of tampering. No ancient writer, xtian or otherwise, quotes his comment about Nero and the xtians. A fair sampling of the Tacitus reference appears in Sulpicius Severus' Chronica, a 5th century work in which he does not cite Tacitus as his source. The only existing manuscript of Tacitus was recently subjected to ultraviolet light and shows that the original word was "Chrestianos" ( followers of Chrestus) not "Christianos" (followers of Christ.) This actually brings Tacitus into line with Suetonius...see below.

Pliny the Younger speaks of Xtians - not "Jesus." Moreover, Pliny tells a tale which would frighten the living piss out of xtians. He notes:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

So much for the "heroic martyr" myth!

Lucian was a mid second century playwright and dates from a time when xtians became numerous enough to be noticed by the establishment. Lucian makes fun of them. You left out Celsus who blasted xtians without the humor but he was also late 2d century.

I'm glad you mentioned Mara bar Serapion because it is as clear a instance of xtian desperation to find their godboy in the books as anything.

Here is the reference:

Or the Jews by the death of their wise king because from that same time their kingdom was taken away?

No mention of Jesus...or Christ...or anything. What you may not know....or choose to forget in any case... is that when Marcus Antonius finally got Herod to the throne of Judaea in 37 BC he did so by evicting the Parthians who were supporting the Hasmonean king Antigonus II Mattathias. Antigonius was the last Hasmonean king and certainly many Jews regarded Herod as little more than a Roman puppet. At any rate, whether it be by Antony's order or Herod's, Antigonius was killed to solidify Herod's throne. We don't need any "jesus" in here who, btw, wasn't the "king" of anything.

Thallus: As D-P notes, Thallus' works are not extant. We know of him only through that superb xtian liar, Eusebius and anything he says needs to be taken cum grano salis....to lapse into Latin.


Suetonius: A junior officer on the staff of Pliny the Younger while he was governor of Asia Minor he would also have known Tacitus who was a friend of Pliny's. Suetonius, in Life of Claudius writes of one "Chrestus" ( a common Greek name meaning "Good") causing trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius which was, unfortunately for you, a few years too late for your godboy. Nonetheless, that simple fact never stops xtians from claiming that Chrestus was Christus! Desperation again. There is another reference in Life of Nero in which Suetonius does mention xtians as being members of a new superstition which were punished along with drunken charioteers and crooked innkeepers. No mention of the Great Fire which presumably he might have heard about from his friend Tacitus. But alas....no mention.

You know, when you trot this stuff out around here you are not dealing with a Chautauqua tent full of Baptists who are going to fall down on the ground shouting "praise jesus" at your every word because they desperately want their fairy tales to be true also. Here, you had better be in position to back up what you say, sport.

---

Alright, let me now ask you something...where did you find this information concerning these ancient writers? You most certainly were not around to witness them for yourself. Have you personally examined their original writings? Probably not. So you cannot say that you know for certain they were tampered with can you?

More than likely, you did a quick web search. If you were thorough, you may have read through four, maybe five articles on each person. You found information that you liked, then by nothing but faith on your part, you accepted what you read.

Christians have literally thousands of manuscripts, in whole and in part, of the New Testament that give accounts of Jesus (some were eyewitnesses). So now let me tell you something Hoss...when you trot out your minute "evidence" that you accept by faith alone, you look very foolish for critizing Christians for believing, by faith, the vast amount of evidence we possess.

[chatpilot]

Chapabel, the only ones who look foolish here are Christians for accepting what they read by faith. In fact, the very method used to determine what books were to be accepted in the biblical text as inspired is dubious since it was conducted by a panel of clergy. Secondly you do not have any eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. In fact, what you do have are third, fourth person accounts and most of those accounts were written from about 40 years after the death of Christ (synoptic gospels ca.70 A.D.). So everything you have are written from oral traditions rather than historical facts. Not to mention that most of the authors of the texts are anonymous and till this day some remain unknown. When it comes to the synoptic gospels the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not appear on these texts as authors till somewhere in the middle of the 2nd. century.

The curious thing about this is that before the 2nd century the synoptic gospels were anonymous works, but it was traditional in those times to add the names of some contemporaries of Jesus to give the text some authenticity and make them authoritative. Although, this does not mean that these so called contemporaries of Jesus actually met him who is to say that they themselves did not make these tales up based on oral traditions and already pre- existent myths that were pervasive throughout that era?

[Thor]

Actually, there is evidence...it's in the Bible as well as secular writings. Try again.

---

The Bible is evidence?



The Bible is evidence of nothing! Unless you want to insist that the Bible proves the Bible. Good luck with that!

First of all, no one knows who wrote the books of the Bible. Secondly, we don't even have the original writings! All we have is copies of copies. Also, the books of the NT were written DECADES after "Jesus" supposedly died.

Saying that the Bible is evidence is like saying there is a land where scarecrows and tin men come to life. The evidence is in "The Wizard of Oz"!

And if you believe the crappola that's in the Bible, you must also believe what's written in other holy books. Do you believe everything that's in the Koran? How about the Book of Mormon? The Rigveda? But I'm guessing you only believe the Bible. Why is that?

And please show me the evidence in "secular writings". And I'm talking about writings that were done during the alleged lifetime of "Jesus". A number of historians lived in or near Jerusalem during the time "Jesus" supposedly lived. And no one wrote a word about him. There is also no mention of him in any historical records or documents (and the Romans were good record keepers). There also isn't a mention of him in any historical writings made by ANYONE, ANYWHERE.

You have nothing to support your fable of a godboy performing all sorts of miracles and rising up from the dead.

Try again.

[DeistPaladin]

Christians have literally thousands of manuscripts, in whole and in part, of the New Testament that give accounts of Jesus (some were eyewitnesses).

I see you've read Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel's works.

Taking seriously that Christian mythology should be accepted as "historical documentation"...

Mark: Not an eye witness
Matthew: Lied at numerous points about the OT. His testimony should be thrown out.
Luke: Not an eye witness and even says so in his opening.
John: His "advanced" theology regarding the Trinity and other inconsistencies with the "synoptic" Gospels indicates late authorship and therefore can't be an eye witness.
Paul: Flatly denies Jesus had lived within his lifetime. 1Cor 15:8.
John (epistles): Admits that many Christians at his time didn't believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Instead of calling them crazy for denying an obvious recent reality, he denounces them as "antichrists" and pleads his readers to believe on faith in the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. See 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7.