Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 10, 2010 at 2:03 am)tackattack Wrote: So
1. Pliny the Younger found superstitious people willing to deny christ for other God's and worshiped him like a god.
2.Julius Africanus (through) Eusebius referenced Jesus but it's hearsay and we're assuming he forged some references.
3.Josephus and Tacitus that have the "stench of forgery" but reference Jesus.
I'll discard the others. How does this not support Jesus' existance alongside the bible?
Let's take these in order. 1. Pliny could have traveled from Bithynia to Ephesos and found all sorts of people worshiping at the Temple of Artemis. Does that make Artemis real? Or Zeus? Or Apollo? What you are engaging in here is called "special pleading." It basically goes like this. "Our god is real but all those others are false." You reject 99.9999 percent of all the gods invented by the fertile mind of men as idols. Yet, you expect everyone to bow down to your particular fiction? Yeah, very convincing. There are lots of versions of this routine. Some xtians whine, "why would anyone die for a lie" and then sit there and blissfully ignore the Islamic suicide bombers who blow themselves up for 72 virgins.
2. Eusebius was famously quoted as approving lying to advance the faith. He is already implicated in the forgery of the TF and the only word we have for the existence of Julius Africanus' works is Eusebius. You would object to someone citing The DaVinci Code as evidence of jesus being married and rightly so because the Davinci Code is a novel. But we do know the provenance of the DaVinci Code. We have no provenance for Julius Africanus. As I said, xtian scribes, who dutifully copied lots of stuff which they thought backed their position, did not bother with this one? Odd.
3. So, you don't care if evidence is forged as long as it tells you what you want to hear? Glad you aren't on jury duty. Ask yourself this. Why, if there were legitimate historical references to your godboy, did they feel compelled to forge some? Recall that the ancients were not laboring under the difficulty which we now face. In the 4th century, the libraries had not yet been burned by xtian thugs. Alexandria, Rome, Athens, Ephesos and Antioch were all centers of great learning. Yet in all of that, no one could find a reference to your so-called god? No wonder they were embarrassed enough to try to do something about it.
Quote:As far as the above, religion was power and control. Lot's of people abused it and still do. Would you rather assume they made up entire sections of the bible from scratch or just rearranged the ones that profitted them most. The Bible scrolls existed before the cannonization and people already knew the stories, so they couldn't have changed much.
You need to start reading books that do not start "IN THE BEGINNING." Then you might find out just how close to reality your question is. Start with Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and find out how much tampering was going on with your 'holy' books. Yes. Entire passages were inserted.
From there, proceed to Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted. When you're finished we'll have your Atheist Membership Card waiting.
1. There's no special pleading if I don't deny that 99.9% of other God's don't exist and mine is the only one. I was summarizing his brief bit of related historical observations.
2. I assume you're quoting "'To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another..." Origen, Eusebius [et al] does not prove in any way conscious intent carried by the connotation of the word lying. I can say what I please (I'd eat steak all day long) while subconsciously I know that I have gout and can't eat that much red meat. It by definition would better be categorized as an exaggeration rather than a lie and doesn't mean from my conscious perspective that I don't want to eat steak. Nor does it state that I can't eat steak. you can analyze one sentence and list tons of things it doesn't say. This is futile, IMO, and a better use of my time is trying to get a better perspective on what was said and the reasons behind it. Provenance is attaching a physical artifact to assign the source or origin of something said? Why isn't the Bible scrolls provenance? I was citing sources outside the bible to lend more subjective opinions and works of history. While 50 subective evidences of God or Jesus don't add up to 1, I don't discount them merely for their subjectivity.
3. Comparing the labors of then to now of scholars to today is fallicious, while they might have had great libraries and less intellectual repression, we have the information age, so not really a valid comparison for or against. Prove in it's entirety that the Bible holds no shred of truth that every extranious citation of God, Jesus, Christ and Christian is forged with deceptive motives and I'd be happy to remove them from my subjective lists.
4. They are number 2 and 3 on my reading list so thanks for that. I've read lots of books that don't start with "In the beggining" it's probably the oldest and one I'm most farmiliar. If the Bible were my only reason for believeing in God then you should keep that membership card warm, unfortunately it's not. I'll let you know after I get those read, but I wouldn't keep the seat warm.
(January 10, 2010 at 11:56 am)Retorth Wrote:
I see what you're getting at.
It is said that there is no way to actually prove a person exists per se. Descartes' famous quote "I think, therefore I am" was his use of an axiom because it cannot be proven false, or so it is said anyway.
However, as I said before, I am not the one believing in someone only found in books and basing my life upon his "teachings" and upon a book that nobody knows for sure is accurate or who it was written by.
You are the one believing in a supposed supreme being and in a figure called "jesus" who supposedly died on the cross for our "sins". How do you prove that to those who seek evidence and confirmation?
Re
Obviously you don't. I'm not taking about burden of proof. It is a question only no arguements or qualifiers. What is the process you personally use to lend provenance when there is no archieological artifact other than written words? Prove Caligula existed outside of writings so I have some frameworks to work within to prove my point. There are numerous other historic figures which were prominent that have statues and effigies. More modern historical figures have photographs and birth certificates. I need the rules to work within, and to understand your logical process, to answer your question.
