Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Bucky Ball]

Flavius Josephus
“Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100), was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War, which resulted in the Destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70.”

Nope. Typical crap. Josephus was a client of the Roman Emperor. His book was an attempt to PROVE Vespasian was the messiah. Are you SURE you want to quote that. There are two references. Chapter 18 is a known forgery. Chapter 20 refers to a James, and is equivocal. Fail.

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

The oldest copy of that text is in the Museum in Milan. I've seen it. That ONE passage does not fit in the text above it, or with the text below it. Different handwriting. Different ink. Scholars KNOW it's an "interpolation". (A forgery, by Christian monks). Josephus would have NEVER written any such thing, as it defeats the entire purpose of the book it's in. Please grow a brain. I see you're a rank beginner here.

Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived from 55-120AD. Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.

No. He references a "Crestus", while still spelling "Christians" correctly. Proves nothing. No way of knowing which messiah he was referring to. Pilate's secretary said NOTHING about it, even while writing about all kinds of other less important things. Same for Philo of Alexandria. He probably was IN Jerusalem at the time .. writes about all kinds of less important things. Not one word about Jebus OR the sanctuary of the holiest site in all of Judaism's curtain to the Holy of Holies being "spontaneously" torn for the first and ONLY time in all of Jewish history. There are records of all the earthquakes at the time. Not the ones claimed by the gospels, (at the resurrection). Sorry. Your cult is all a big fat lie.

BTW, the fact that some historians reference cult followers, in NO way proves the cult true, or its supposed founder true.

[truthBtold]

Flavius Josephus
“Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100), was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War, which resulted in the Destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70.”

Nope. Typical crap. Josephus was a client of the Roman Emperor. His book was an attempt to PROVE Vespasian was the messiah. Are you SURE you want to quote that. There are two references. Chapter 18 is a known forgery. Chapter 20 refers to a James, and is equivocal. Fail.

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

The oldest copy of that text is in the Museum in Milan. I've seen it. That ONE passage does not fit ith the text above it, and below it. Different handwriting. Different ink. Scholars KNOW it's an "interpolation". (A forgery by Christian monks). Josephus would have NEVER written any such thing, as it defeats the entire purpose of the book it's in. Please grow a brain. I see you're a rank beginner here.

Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived from 55-120AD. Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.

No. He references a Crestus, while still spelling "Christians" correctly. Proves nothing.

Bucky.. forget it theres no hope

[Bucky Ball]

Nope. Typical crap. Josephus was a client of the Roman Emperor. His book was an attempt to PROVE Vespasian was the messiah. Are you SURE you want to quote that. There are two references. Chapter 18 is a known forgery. Chapter 20 refers to a James, and is equivocal. Fail.

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

The oldest copy of that text is in the Museum in Milan. I've seen it. That ONE passage does not fit ith the text above it, and below it. Different handwriting. Different ink. Scholars KNOW it's an "interpolation". (A forgery by Christian monks). Josephus would have NEVER written any such thing, as it defeats the entire purpose of the book it's in. Please grow a brain. I see you're a rank beginner here.

Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived from 55-120AD. Despite the fact the clearly despised Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”, Tacitus no less confirms once again the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion on the cross, it also states Pontius Pilate as the procurator who oversaw the crucifixion again giving non-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence as recorded in the Bible.

No. He references a Crestus, while still spelling "Christians" correctly. Proves nothing.

Bucky.. forget it theres no hope

I understand that. I post for passing guests not the idiots who are this deluded. These tools ask the SAME old (same old) questions that many have. There are perfectly reasonable answers for them all, which are not so readily available on the internet.

[Phatt Matt s]

At this time I don't know how to verify that what you say is true when I have read differently from Historians. When two people come to the exact opposite conclusions based on Documents from Contemporary Historians, who is right and who is wrong?

Are there not Historians or Scripture Scholars more educated than you who would say you are full of shit, (not exclusively to your comments about first and second century Historians, but the other claims you have made about everyone being deceived) and "mistranslation"?

What reason do I have that I should place my trust in you?

When sincerely asked, this question is a good one. After all, there have been false Messiahs in Jewish history. Among the most prominent were Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome in the years 132-135 C.E.

one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed him to be "King Messiah." Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E. when the Romans stormed the stronghold of Betar. Shabbetai Zevi, on the other hand, was a self-proclaimed Messiah. Flourishing in 17th-century Europe, the Shabbatean movement spread among both the common people and the rabbis. But when Shabbetai Zevi was arrested in 1666 by the Sultan of Turkey, he converted to Islam rather than face death. We have been tragically wrong before.

---

In regard to some of the other content of the thread addressed to you:

Yousaid, the words in the gospel were invented: this is well outside scholarly thought, thus to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence. You should tell us who invented it and why.

---

Another Question you were asked is "Are you qualified to tell us what the OT scriptures say and mean?"

Another thing you didn't respond to was: Jesus correctly prophecies the fall of Jerusalem not once, but twice and it's recorded multiple times.

If you can prove to me that the prophecy that Jesus made as to the fall of Jerusalem is not an original part of the gospels, or that the synoptic gospels were written after 70AD then you have proof that you're right

[Bucky Ball]

What reason do I have that I should place my trust in you?

You shouldn't. You need to go get YOUR own education. The "mistranslation " thing is taught to FRESHMEN in college Biblical studies.

There is no "good question" about a messiah. The entire concept is fatally flawed for a million (historical and cultural) reasons. Most Jews in fact were NOT even Apocalyptics, and NOT even looking for a messianic figure. The entire notion of "salvation" is non-biblical. (You didn't read the links did you ?) No scholar questions that the gospels were written after 70 AD. I see you have NO education on the subject. Too bad. You've been indoctrinated by Fundamentalists, and you bought the crap. Hook line and sinker.

The very notion of a "god" and/or "creator" actually makes no sense.

[Phatt Matt s]

I didn't say I believed the Gospels were written before 70AD

It was another poster on the thread that asked you questions and you ignored:
"I was quoting him"

No Marian cunt I won't. The words in the gospel were INVENTED to make it appear that a "pesher" had been "fulfilled". In fact Mary was not a "virgin" and Jebus did NOTHING to fulfill the predictions of what a "messiah" was to do. The Kingdom of David was NEVER re-established. IN fact the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and it has NEVER been rebuilt. No reasonable person can claim Jebus did ANYTHING a messiah was to do. Jebus never existed.

Oh please, barely anything you said has support from any critical historians, let alone modern Christian scholarship.

Let me break it down: 1. the words in the gospel were invented: this is well outside scholarly thought, thus to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence. You also need to tell us who invented it and why. 2. The virgin birth is in both Matthew and Luke and their accounts differ to the point that it's clear that they are recording separate accounts. 3. You're not qualified to tell us what the OT scriptures say. 4. Jesus correctly prophecies the fall of Jerusalem not once, but twice and it's recorded multiple times - this is very important and I'll explain why.

If you can prove to me that the prophecy that Jesus made as to the fall of Jerusalem is not an original part of the gospels, or that the synoptic gospels were written after 70AD then you have proof that you're right. However, here's my evidence - and it's very strong:

1. Luke-Acts is written by the same author this is the consensus view among all groups of NT scholars including critical scholars.
   
2. Here is the prophecy, made not just once but twice:
   
   1. Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
   2. Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
3. Half of Acts attests to the author's eyewitness account (this is also consensus even among critical scholars), and the account ends c. 60-61AD (agreed upon by a clear majority of scholars).
   
4. No mention is ever made in Luke-Acts or the other gospels of the siege having taken place.
   
5. There are three possible explanations: 1. genuine prophecy, 2. textual corruption (ie prophecy inserted into text later) and 3. that the text was written after the siege of Jerusalem had taken place. Thus, critical scholars (ie sceptics) are forced to believe option 2 or 3.
   
6. There is no credible evidence that these passages are not original to the text of Luke and the other Gospels, and thus most critical scholars do not claim it is from textual corruption.
   
7. I've just given you clear evidence that Luke-Acts was completed well before 70AD, however critical scholars generally believe it was written after 70AD, their evidence being that the prophecy is too specific to be coincidence (circular logic). If this is really the case then why don't any of the Gospels or for that matter Acts mention the siege of Jerusalem taking place? Why doesn't Paul mention it? Critical scholars will agree that Paul wrote his epistles up to the 60's AD, and the only reason they have for dating the synoptic gospels and Acts to after 70AD is that it contains a prophecy to the fall of Jerusalem!

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24860-page-9.html

[Bucky Ball]

Acts 4:15 "Peter and John were 'unlettered' ". Oops. These were illiterate Galilean lower-class peasants, (who would not have spoken Greek). Paul references NOTHING to any known gospel or any other writings. Who exactly would have written anything ?

Miracle-working preachers were a dime a dozen. There is nothing "special" about this one, (except that the Roman emperor chose to use the new cult to politically unify his empire).

[Aractus]

I could care less what "modern Christian" scholarship says about anything. I ONLY care what "scholarship" says, and YOU have referenced NOTHING with even ONE scholar. Only made assertions. That is utterly worthless crap.

Typical yank, can't even get British idioms right. I don't need to provide references for the settled facts among all scholars, that's ridiculous. It'd be like saying I need to provide modern references for speed of light or other such nonsense. It is in fact you who need to provide sources if you're going to challenge the basic settled facts.

The words in the gospels were invented/chosen by SOMEONE, (a human) or they wouldn't BE there.

Again, you're pulling bullshit out of their air. There's a volume of information within the NT agreed upon by historians (NT scholars), which means that at least that portion of the information isn't "invented".

How ELSE did they get there ? The gospels are proclamations of BELIEF, for believers, to remind themselves what they already believed.

You have no authority to claim what the NT books are.

They are IN NO WAY, "factual".

I'm not even going to dignify that bullshit, go troll elsewhere.

YOU are the one that "needs to provide evidence" that even ONE thing in them is "factual". You can't even provide ONE piece of evidence that Jesus even existed.

I don't need to prove something that's already agreed upon by historians as fact. If you're going to disagree with history it's up to you to provide evidence. Explain the letters of Paul? Explain the book of Acts? Explain Josephus and James the Just?

IF the gospels can't even agree on the day or time he died, the day or time of his trial, whether he gave a speech or was silent at the trial, states that the temple curtain was "torn" (but can't agree on the day it happened), and NOT ONE Jewish historian (who were KNOWN to be IN Jerusalem at the time), EVER ONCE mentioned that fact, and the FACT that the Sanhedrin was NEVER ONCE in all of history called into session on Passover weekend, that there was a zombie invasion (in Matthew) of Jerusalem, and NOT ONE JEW or Roman even mentions that "fact".. it's ALL a pile of horse shit.

You'd make a pretty lousy historian. I don't have to prove every detail in the NT is accurate - we already know many detail are certainly accurate, and there's other details that can't be externally confirmed, but there's nothing in the NT that's been confirmed as wrong - not even Luke's census has been proven not to occur.

Furthermore as you would well know, all the documents we have from that period are copies, no autograph originals exist anymore, so for you to find someone that wrote down these events they had to be copied and preserved for centuries to come or else you have virtually no chance of finding them. The reason that the Gospels and the Gnostic texts and Paul's letters and the rest of the NT and Josephus's tests and other writings have survived is because many copies were made of them. Furthermore many ancient libraries were burned or destroyed along with their contents - Library of Alexandria, the Jewish Temple, etc. The main material used at the time, papyrus, did not generally last very long. There are 5,800 ancient NT manuscripts in Greek and less than 130 are papyri that survived.

I AM qualified to translate the OT. I am a Harvard grad student in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Who is NOT qualified here, is YOU.

So what? Even if you were an OT scholar, that doesn't make you an NT scholar.

So there's that. YOU, and everyone else here has NOT debunked the link about the translation I provided.

What the fuck are you talking about? Isaiah 7:14? The author of the Gospel according to Mathew translates almah as 'virgin', so what? How do you know that it's a mistranslation?

You prove to me Jebus ever existed, and THEN we'll start to talk details.
List all your "scholars" and list the POLLS of ALL said scholars that PROVES what you claim is "consensus" is true. PROVE to me that ONE thing in any gospel that "Jesis said" was actually said by him, and demonstrate how they would have kept a record of that for at least 100 years with NO recording tools.

You're clutching at straws. How about the sermon on the mount? How many scholars do you know that doubt that Jesus delivered that? How about the Last Supper - an event recorded in 5 books in the Bible - how many scholars do you know that doubt that occurred?

Acts "attests" to NOTHING except what believers wanted to make it "attest" to. You actually THINK they would have something (like the Gospel of Thomas, or Judas or Mary Magdalene) in the canon that contradicted their "beliefs" ? Of COURSE it "attests" to what they wanted it to "attest" to. Acts also "attests" to the fact that when Peter was talking to the Jewish authorities, they HAD NO CLUE what he was talking about when he told them they killed Jebus. IF the Jews and Romans went to ALL that trouble to kill him, why would they not go try to re-arrest him, or even look for him, IF he posed such a threat ? Cuz he never existed. He was a figment. YOU cannot determine a difference between this Jebus and the Jesus of Philo or Jesus of Gemala, or Simon of Perea. All messiahs. All died. All said to have risen in 3 days.

Acts attests to the Jerusalem Council for one thing, also talked about in Galatians. Most critical scholars agree it is a real historical event, do you disagree?

Saying "most critical" scholars is crap YOU must name them, or STFU.

Why, especially as I don't agree with critical scholars or I'd be an atheist? Here's one group now disbanded, but I think you'll be able to assess their views very easily, and find that the basic facts I've asserted aren't challenged.

[Bucky Ball]

Typical yank, can't even get British idioms right. I don't need to provide references for the settled facts among all scholars, that's ridiculous. It'd be like saying I need to provide modern references for speed of light or other such nonsense. It is in fact you who need to provide sources if you're going to challenge the basic settled facts.

Ah yes. Quite "ridiculous. Hey old man. You post is a huge pile of crap. Umm yes idiot. You DO have to provide references. YOU claimed "most scholars this", and "most scholars that". YOU must provide the sources for your crap. Saying "no it isn't" and "yes it is" is worth NOTHING. What your (incompetent) OPINION is about "what is settled" or not, is worthless. Your opinions are worthless. Ehrman's and Carrier's (and many others) views are outside the mainstream. Doesn't make them either right or wrong. You utterly FAIL with respect to any DETAILS. Are you always making general assertions with NO REFERENCES ? You are totally incompetent to say ANYTHING about either the NT or OT, BTW.

I provided a number of reasons why one might think Jebus did not exist, and why the gospels are totally inaccurate, and contradictory. Did you address even ONE ? No. Fail. Josephus' book was an attempt to prove Vespasian was the messiah. ARe you SURE you want to reference that ? The quote in Chapter 18 is a KNOWN forgery and the one in 20 is equivocal. Clearly you are not up to speed here, old man. The books of Paul talk about a Jebus HE NEVER MET. He said he "got his gospel from no man" (a hallucination). I see you are utterly non-conversant with the details of the debate. You FAILED to provide ONE reference for anything that can be "externally confirmed". Are you always this utterly LAME ? Repeating over and over something is "accurate" doesn't make it so. There are direct contradictions in the NT. They can't BOTH be true. You are delusional, totally.

"Furthermore as you would well know, all the documents we have from that period are copies, no autograph originals exist anymore, so for you to find someone that wrote down these events they had to be copied and preserved for centuries to come or else you have virtually no chance of finding them. The reason that the Gospels and the Gnostic texts and Paul's letters and the rest of the NT and Josephus's tests and other writings have survived is because many copies were made of them. Furthermore many ancient libraries were burned or destroyed along with their contents - Library of Alexandria, the Jewish Temple, etc. The main material used at the time, papyrus, did not generally last very long. There are 5,800 ancient NT manuscripts in Greek and less than 130 are papyri that survived."

So what ? Your point is ? Your deity is so fucking weak, she can't even keep some texts around to refer to ?

"So what? Even if you were an OT scholar, that doesn't make you an NT scholar."

So what ? YOU said I was not qualified to translate the mistranslation of Isaiah. You lied. You were wrong. That's what. I already explained the mistranslation. Every Freshman Bible student is taught about the mistranslation. Obviously you have NO eduction in the Babble.

"You're clutching at straws." is not an argument.

I see you have no proofs of anything, and can prove nothing.
Everything in the Bible is not "recorded" It's "purposely placed" far a reason, by believers with an agenda.

STOP spouting crap about "most critical scholars". We all know what that REALLY means is "scholars that agree with ME". You STILL have provided NO NAMES, and NO references. You are incompetent. What Acts claimed went on in the Council of Jerusalem is irrelevant. You addressed NONE of the points. I know all about the Jesus Seminar. Some were Biblical scholars. Some were not. Crossan does not buy the resurrection. BB Scott does not buy the resurrection. I could care less. A radical re-evaluation is not a bad thing. You've got nothing, you patronizing pompous ass. You can't even name one scholar, or reference ONE of your ASS-ertions. Go away, and troll a Christian forum with your presuppositions.

[Aractus]

Just like I thought, all you know how to do is talk shit.

As I mentioned, the author of the Gospel according to Mathew translates almah in Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin', are you suggesting that his translation is incompetent? Because his translation very closely follows the MT in that instance, and in fact is a pretty literal reading throughout the rest of his gospel - so on what evidence are you saying that Matthew was an incompetent translator? FYI the book of Matthew contains the earliest translation of Is 7:14 that we have...