Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

Surprisingly?

Can you gents please explain to me why you don't think Jesus is a historical figure or that he existed?

…because they don’t want him to have existed.

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?

It’s not up to me, that is the whole point. That is where the Jesus Myth crowd make their biggest mistake, they arbitrarily discount sources but then accept other sources who are less well attested (or even the same sources when referencing other matters as in the case of Josephus and the early church fathers). Historians accept the sources I have appealed to as valid in regards to establishing the existence of Jesus.

On Herod and the killing of the infants

I am not sure what this has to do with the existence of Jesus but obviously arguing that the massacre of the innocents could not have happened because it fulfills Old Testament prophecy is not a valid reason to doubt its historicity. It is certainly something that is completely consistent with what else we know about King Herod.

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.

This seems totally irrelevant because Theophilus was a 2nd Century source; we have 1st Century sources that do mention Jesus so they take precedence.

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.

Again, I question the relevance of this. It is impossible to find sources from that time period that could not be argued as being biased by one person or another. Josephus was an Orthodox Jew, Tacitus and Suetonius were Romans who despised Christians, and Pliny the Younger tortured Christians.

Thanks for keeping an open mind on this though and for providing the interesting post!

Says the idiot who believes in talking snakes!

I do not believe in talking snakes, but even if I did it would be more in the mainstream than believing Jesus never existed.

Join the sane world and maybe we can talk.

You wouldn’t dare debate me.

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.

You tout scholarly majority in regards to Evolution but reject it when it goes against your Jesus Myth fringe ideas. I’ve already pointed out that I reject Evolution based upon evidence to the contrary; you have presented no contrary evidence to the historically accepted position concerning Jesus’ existence. As it turns out, it is you who is being hypocritical.

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.

Again, this is a commonly held misconception amongst lay persons (much like the false belief that science deals with proof). Empirical sciences (which I assume you are referring to as “hard sciences” here) require direct observation and repeatability. Since we have no direct observation of the evolution of all life on Earth from a single common ancestor (nor can we repeat such an event) Darwinism is not an empirical science. Rather it is a historical science based upon inferences about the past. When we compare this to historical facts such as the existence of Jesus which is based upon actual testimony of eye witnesses and contemporaries we find that there is no comparison between the two. This is why we find that there are thousands of times more qualified experts who question Evolution than question the existence of Jesus. As far as fringe ideas go, yours is definitely “way out there”.

Additionally, you believe the earth is 6000 [sic] years old, putting you in conflict not just with biology but with cosmology and history.

This is becoming rather amusing. All you are doing is highlighting just how fringe your beliefs really are. There are many times more experts with advanced degrees in the appropriate fields who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old than qualified experts who believe Jesus never existed. Remarkable eh?

We have stars in our night sky who's [sic] light took millions of years to reach us.

This is actually incorrect, the one-way speed of light being uniform in all directions in relation to the observer is something that is stipulated by physicists; it is not an inherent property of Nature.

Historians will tell you that we have civilizations that are older than 6000 [sic] years.

There are qualified historians who disagree with this; however, there are none who disagree with the historicity of Jesus’ existence.

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

Sure I can; but even if I were being hypocritical it does not change the fact that believing Jesus never existed is a more fringe belief than believing the Earth is 6,000 years old. Nicely done.

There is none.

…all this means is that you are ignorant of such evidence.

Evolution is not only the universally accepted theory among biologists, the entire field of study makes no sense except in light of evolution.

Dobzhansky’s absurd claims aside, you have yet to even identify what you mean by the term Evolution.

Disputing it would be like disputing Germ Theory in the field of medicine.

Not as absurd as disputing the existence of Jesus though.

It's called "burden of proof".

No it’s not. The burden of proof is on the person rejecting the universally accepted position. To date you have provided no reasons for your fringe belief that Jesus never existed.

The natural universe is all we experience during our waking hours.

Proof?

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.

Give me an example please.

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.

Again, this is just false. There is no such rule in logic ascribing the burden of proof to the extraordinary claim. This is a ploy naturalists try to pull when they know their position is indefensible. Making up self-serving rules is not going to get you anywhere with me mister.

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.

How do you know any of this to be true?

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.

How do you know any of this is true?

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.

…says the guy who conveniently re-writes the historical Jesus out of history. The irony!