Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Minimalist]

Tacitus (55-120 AD, Annuls), Lucian of Samosata (later half of 1st century, Suetonius (Life of Claidius, 25.4), Pliny the Younger (112 AD), Thallus (52 AD quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronography), Phlegon (quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronicles), Mara Bar-Serapion (after 70 AD) all are non-Christian sources that

Here we go again with Stupid Stuff That Xtians Spout.

Tacitus - probably a much later forgery anyway - never mentions any "Jesus."

Lucian of Samosata was the second half of the 2d century - not the first and he was a satirist making fun of idiot xtians.

Suetonius speaks of "Chrestus" not Christos. Chrestus was a Greek slave name. Further, Claudius did not assume the throne until 41 AD when your godboy was supposedly long dead.

Pliny the Younger never mentions any "Jesus" and he further talks about how so-called xtians sacrificed to Trajan and cursed Christ to save their own necks...something xtians would not want to get around.

Neither Thallus nor Julius Africanus' works are extant. They appear only in the work of the noted xtian liar, Eusebius, who is about as reliable as a $2 watch. Eusebius is the most likely forger of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which was clumsily inserted in Josephus' in the 4th century.

Mara Bar Serapion never mentions "jesus," "christ" or xtians. In fact, he is probably blaming the Jews for killing Antigonus II, the last Hasmonean king of Judea - or having Mark Antony do it for them.

What else have you got? My guess is, "not much."

[Undeceived]

It might be helpful to lay the texts in question on the table.

Tacitus - probably a much later forgery anyway - never mentions any "Jesus."

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Yes, but who else would this refer to?

Lucian of Samosata was the second half of the 2d century - not the first and he was a satirist making fun of idiot xtians.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

He was indeed "a satirist making fun of Christians." Which, of course, is the point.

Suetonius speaks of "Chrestus" not Christos. Chrestus was a Greek slave name. Further, Claudius did not assume the throne until 41 AD when your godboy was supposedly long dead.

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Jews in Rome in the 40s AD. The book of Acts is validated. When Jesus, and later Stephen, died, Christian Jews scattered for fear of persecution. Suetonius' account matches the Bible exactly: that for some reason Jews ended up in Rome, and soon thereafter were expelled. All because of one man.

Pliny the Younger never mentions any "Jesus" and he further talks about how so-called xtians sacrificed to Trajan and cursed Christ to save their own necks...something xtians would not want to get around.

"They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal—but ordinary and innocent food."

Something Christians would not want to get around. Which is why Pliny the Younger's account is unlikely to be a forgery. Here, Christians are worshiping "Christ" as if he is God, displaying morals, and partaking in Communion/Eucharist (which is based on Jesus' sacrifice of body and blood on the cross).

Neither Thallus nor Julius Africanus' works are extant. They appear only in the work of the noted xtian liar, Eusebius, who is about as reliable as a $2 watch. Eusebius is the most likely forger of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which was clumsily inserted in Josephus' in the 4th century.

Have you any evidence that Eusebius' work contains forgeries?

Mara Bar Serapion never mentions "jesus," "christ" or xtians. In fact, he is probably blaming the Jews for killing Antigonus II, the last Hasmonean king of Judea - or having Mark Antony do it for them.

"What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down."

Jesus is referred to as the "King of the Jews" in all four Gospels. Jesus also predicts the destruction of the Jews' kingdom in Matt 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6. The Romans overthrew Jerusalem in 70 AD. Mara Bar Serapion notes that the "wise king" is not dead because of the "new law" he laid down. Jesus laid down the New Covenant. What new law did Antigonus II lay down?

What else have you got? My guess is, "not much."

The Jewish Talmud was compiled in the 2nd century:
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”

And there are more Jewish accounts: http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/

Enough with speculations about forgeries. Someone might get the wrong idea and think you're using a disbelief in divinity as a premise for your arguments.

[Minimalist]

Yes, but who else would this refer to?

I'm really tired of straightening out jesus freak assholes on this stuff so I'll do this one and leave the others for DP if he likes....or perhaps I'll feel more energetic later.

Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny were all early second century Roman writers.
Tacitus and Pliny were friends and some of their correspondence remains intact. Suetonius Tranquillus was a junior officer on Pliny's staff while he was governor of Bithinia-Pontus in Asia Minor. Pliny learns of xtians c 110 when he gets to his province and they tell him nothing about any jesus or any of the other happy horseshit which goes with xtianity...even under torture. They talk about Christos - which only means "The Anointed One." Suetonius refers to Chrestus in Rome in the reign of Claudius. Tacitus, as noted, is probably a medieval forgery copied from the 5th century work of Sulpicius Severus, but in any case he never mentions "jesus" either.

It seems that the whole "jesus" as a personification of Christos did not begin until later in the second century when, all of a sudden Greco- Roman writers like Celsus and Lucian of Samosata did start to take notice of this rather silly cult.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yes, but I'm an atheist and do good deeds. No gods are required.

I'm glad. I think it is easier to love others when one's heart is overflowing with God's love and joy.

Clarify.

Why? How?

I thought you were tired of this forum? You didn't respond to my last post for certain, so why have you come back? Not that I mind, always good to see more theists.

[Bad Writer]

Undeceived, clearly you have no concept of how important a contemporary is in determining whether or not someone or something existed. You are doing absolutely zero credit to your forum name with this half-baked argument of yours. What you and so many other Xians fail to realize is that we still wouldn't worship Zombie Jesus even if he had been a real person. Trying to prove to us that he was real is as useless as putting a saddle on a bucking bronco.

[BettyG]

Yes, but who else would this refer to?

I'm really tired of straightening out jesus freak assholes on this stuff so I'll do this one and leave the others for DP if he likes....or perhaps I'll feel more energetic later.

Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny were all early second century Roman writers.
Tacitus and Pliny were friends and some of their correspondence remains intact. Suetonius Tranquillus was a junior officer on Pliny's staff while he was governor of Bithinia-Pontus in Asia Minor. Pliny learns of xtians c 110 when he gets to his province and they tell him nothing about any jesus or any of the other happy horseshit which goes with xtianity...even under torture. They talk about Christos - which only means "The Anointed One." Suetonius refers to Chrestus in Rome in the reign of Claudius. Tacitus, as noted, is probably a medieval forgery copied from the 5th century work of Sulpicius Severus, but in any case he never mentions "jesus" either.

It seems that the whole "jesus" as a personification of Christos did not begin until later in the second century when, all of a sudden Greco- Roman writers like Celsus and Lucian of Samosata did start to take notice of this rather silly cult.

Humans have remarkable memories. My mom clearly remembers the big flood of 1927 86 years ago. Add 86 to 33 AD is 119 AD. Second century. She remembers things her grandparents told her that possibly happened 80 years before that. So it could be possible that in the late 100's, people knew what happened in 33 AD without writing any thing down. In those days of illiteracy, people had to put more effort into rote learning.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Humans have remarkable memories. My mom clearly remembers the big flood of 1927 86 years ago. Add 86 to 33 AD is 119 AD. Second century. She remembers things her grandparents told her that possibly happened 80 years before that. So it could be possible that in the late 100's, people knew what happened in 33 AD without writing any thing down. In those days of illiteracy, people had to put more effort into rote learning.

She believes she remembers is very different from she actually remembers.

Memory is altered every single time you recall it. If you don't recall it, you forget it.

There are people with abilities to remember everything down the last detail, but there's no reason to think your mum or anyone of these people here have this ability.

That is hardly the point here, even if they actually remembered, nothing is preventing them from lying, since most people around them wouldn't have known what happened anyway.

[Bad Writer]

In those days of illiteracy, people had to put more effort into rote learning.

Da fuk? The Jews were Illiterate????!!!! The Romans were Illiterate????!!! Who gave you permission to rewrite history by pulling shit out of your ass?

[BettyG]

[quote='pocaracas' pid='484959' dateline='1375049553']
You know that the Jesus that people acknowledge that may have existed is not the Jesus that christians nowadays worship. I mean, it may have been the same person, but not necessarily, the same feats, the same origin, the same divinity.
According to Bart Ehrman, the Jesus that people followed in the first century was a prophet, a teacher of scripture.... Later, someone glued onto this figure a few earlier prophesies about a messiah... the virgin birth would be one of them... and after some time (~300 years, or some 6 to 9 generations) the view currently held arose.{/quote]


[quote]About Krauss's nothing... it is a tentative explanation for the origin of our Universe. A Universe from the apparent nothingness. A nothingness which is composed of virtual quantum particles and fields.
You may ask, then, where did these fields and particles come from?
I may ask, then, where did your god come from?

To both questions, the "they were always there" may apply.

However, we have a CERN which attests that these fields exist..... whereas your (or anyone else's) god is remarkably empty of evidence for its existence outside the minds of believers like you.
[/quote]

I need to define some things about the nature of God.
The whole point I'm getting at is that there had to be some being that did not need to be created. This something we know from logic since the universe did not and cannot create itself. There had to be an intelligent being to create it because we observe a complex universe. God is the nth degree of perfection, so since to be a being is a greater perfection than not being a being, God is a being.
Nothing comes from nothing. God is not a thing, though Jesus did take on flesh about 0 AD give or take a few. Since He is uncreated, He is not limited by time and space. Instead, He created time and space. By definition, God is the uncaused cause of everything. God, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent.
The Higgs particle and other particles had to be created, so they exist in time and space because there was a time when they did not exist. So you cannot compare the characteristics of God to particles.

[Captain Colostomy]

You know that the Jesus that people acknowledge that may have existed is not the Jesus that christians nowadays worship. I mean, it may have been the same person, but not necessarily, the same feats, the same origin, the same divinity.
According to Bart Ehrman, the Jesus that people followed in the first century was a prophet, a teacher of scripture.... Later, someone glued onto this figure a few earlier prophesies about a messiah... the virgin birth would be one of them... and after some time (~300 years, or some 6 to 9 generations) the view currently held arose.

About Krauss's nothing... it is a tentative explanation for the origin of our Universe. A Universe from the apparent nothingness. A nothingness which is composed of virtual quantum particles and fields.
You may ask, then, where did these fields and particles come from?
I may ask, then, where did your god come from?

To both questions, the "they were always there" may apply.

However, we have a CERN which attests that these fields exist..... whereas your (or anyone else's) god is remarkably empty of evidence for its existence outside the minds of believers like you.

I need to define some things about the nature of God.
The whole point I'm getting at is that there had to be some being that did not need to be created. This something we know from logic since the universe did not and cannot create itself. There had to be an intelligent being to create it because we observe a complex universe. God is the nth degree of perfection, so since to be a being is a greater perfection than not being a being, God is a being.
Nothing comes from nothing. God is not a thing, though Jesus did take on flesh about 0 AD give or take a few. Since He is uncreated, He is not limited by time and space. Instead, He created time and space. By definition, God is the uncaused cause of everything. God, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent.
The Higgs particle and other particles had to be created, so they exist in time and space because there was a time when they did not exist. So you cannot compare the characteristics of God to particles.

I think I peed a little.