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!
Current time: October 22, 2021, 5:45 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Imagine this...
#71
RE: Imagine this...
(May 6, 2021 at 1:51 pm)Nomad Wrote:
(May 4, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Drich Wrote: and like it or not in the official writing of josephus, jesus is mention as well in 4 other historical documents written by period historians:
https://dowym.com/voices/5-secular-non-b...-ministry/

Of the five writers:

1) Tacitus was writing about 80-100 years after Jesus' alleged death and not about Jesus either but a group which as far as we can tell were called Chrestians or followers of Chrestus (the oldest extant copy has a clear rubbing out of the e in "Chrestianos" and insterting of an i to make it "Christianos".  So no, not a reference to Jesus, maybe a reference to christians, though not likely.

2) The Babylonian Talmud was written after 200CE when christianity was an established religion in direct competition to judaism.  It mentioning Jesus has no bearing on whether Jesus was a historical figure, no more than books refuting the Hellenic religion are a proof of Zeus' existence.  Also, as a religious document, it is not "secular".

3) Josephus, see above.  We know he didn't write about Jesus and we can pretty much point out who inserted the references to Jesus in Josephus' works; Eusebius in c 325CE.

4) There is no evidence that Mara ben-Serapion wrote about Jesus.  That is simply a post-hoc justification by christian apologists to give a fake legitimacy to their mythology.  And the fact that he was talking about a Jewish king that was murdered by necessity precludes him talking about Jesus.

5) Pliny wasn't talking about Jesus, he was talking about a crazy cult known as christians who were causing trouble for the good governance of the provence he was Pro-Consul.  Not evidence for Jesus, no more than Bergoglio in Rome today is.

So Drippy your link is nought for five.  How does it feel to be constantly shown to be a luddite know-nothing mountebank?

Nice summary, but do you really think that Drich cares about this? If he did he would already know it, but he doesn't know, and he will never care.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
#72
RE: Imagine this...
(May 6, 2021 at 1:51 pm)Nomad Wrote:
(May 4, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Drich Wrote: and like it or not in the official writing of josephus, jesus is mention as well in 4 other historical documents written by period historians:
https://dowym.com/voices/5-secular-non-b...-ministry/

Of the five writers:

1) Tacitus was writing about 80-100 years after Jesus' alleged death and not about Jesus either but a group which as far as we can tell were called Chrestians or followers of Chrestus (the oldest extant copy has a clear rubbing out of the e in "Chrestianos" and insterting of an i to make it "Christianos".  So no, not a reference to Jesus, maybe a reference to christians, though not likely.
lol you haven't actually read the letter between tacitus and the emperor have you? while one could fall/claim a translation/spelling error the contents of the letter make it abundantly clear as to whom these people are worshiping, as time and care is taken to describe jesus,
In Annuls 15.44, he explicitly talks about Jesus, during his writings on Emperor Nero. He talks first about the Christian sect before then mentioning: “… Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reining of Tiberius.”
This confirms the biblical account of Jesus’ death and, as it comes from an enemy of the Church, it can be further trusted as he has no incentive to make his account match biblical scripture.


Quote:2) The Babylonian Talmud was written after 200CE when christianity was an established religion in direct competition to judaism.  It mentioning Jesus has no bearing on whether Jesus was a historical figure, no more than books refuting the Hellenic religion are a proof of Zeus' existence.  Also, as a religious document, it is not "secular".
this is all but a flat out lie.
2. The Babylonian Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism. It is a collection of writings that cover the post-biblical history of the Jewish people.
In Sanhedrin 43a, it recounts how Jesus led many Jews astray. The Sanhedrin wanted to have him stoned and, on the eve of Passover, Jesus was Crucified. The line “But, not having found anything in his favour” also suggest that a trial happened. This is all in line with what we are told in the Gospels.
Most interestingly is the line “He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery…” The reason it is interesting is because they have had to admit it was believed that Jesus had some supernatural power. The difference of course is that they claim it came from some evil source instead of God.
Some reject the Talmud’s account because during the Middle Ages many Jewish people claimed that this was not Jesus but another man that was being talked about. The problem with accepting this rejection is that it lacks context. The reason the Jewish people claimed this was because numerous times between 1239 and 1775 all copies of the Talmud were ordered to be destroyed by the Church. The Church did this literally because the passages on Jesus found within Sanhedrin 43a are insulting about Jesus. The Jewish response was simply a way for them to retain their scripture and notably it did not convince people because the text is so explicit!


Quote:3) Josephus, see above.  We know he didn't write about Jesus and we can pretty much point out who inserted the references to Jesus in Josephus' works; Eusebius in c 325CE.
where your at what year is it? it's like you are communicating from 1995.. believe it or not i'm in the year 2021.. as the arguments you use are so outdated i feel shame for you. your efforts are lazy and uninformed, you probably have not reexamined anything since you adopted these positions in 95. here's the thing, if you would have even open up the link i provided you would see all your arguments are ill informed/lies or just outdated.
for inst6ance while josephus orginal works work 'doctored a little bit to spell out jesus to look more like the jesus of scripture, we have since found (1971) older copies of the works of josephus and they still describe jesus well enough to tie him to the gospels
Josephus was a 1st century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer, who was born in Jerusalem. He lived in the 1st century AD and his writings are an invaluable source of knowledge about this time period.
The main objection to his account is that most copies we have of it are clearly doctored to be more pro-Christian. This is evidenced by Josephus, a Jew, claiming Jesus was the Christ, performed miracles and fulfilled explicitly all the prophets had foretold. This obviously causes problems, even though we know it’s been only slightly reworded. It was cleaned up in 1971, however, when Shlomo Pines discovered an Arabic Josephus passage quote in Agapius, “The book of the Title”.
Here is what the undoctored text says: “At this time, there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
As we can see, even though it does not have Josephus explicitly stating Jesus was the Christ (like he does in doctored versions), everything he says verifies what we see in the New Testament. The account is reliable as, coming from a Jewish source through non-Christian Arabic translations, there is no motive for these people to affirm Christian teaching.
Josephus also records in Antiquities 18.5.2 how John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas.


Quote:4) There is no evidence that Mara ben-Serapion wrote about Jesus.  That is simply a post-hoc justification by christian apologists to give a fake legitimacy to their mythology.  And the fact that he was talking about a Jewish king that was murdered by necessity precludes him talking about Jesus.

5) Pliny wasn't talking about Jesus, he was talking about a crazy cult known as christians who were causing trouble for the good governance of the provence he was Pro-Consul.  Not evidence for Jesus, no more than Bergoglio in Rome today is.

So Drippy your link is nought for five.  How does it feel to be constantly shown to be a luddite know-nothing mountebank?

the same is also true for 4 and five... but rather me extend your failure in a great wall of refuted point by point text i will just leave you with the web address where i am cutting and pasting the blue paragraphs from.. so you can leave your 1995 comments there, instead of with me.

https://dowym.com/voices/5-secular-non-b...-ministry/

(May 13, 2021 at 1:55 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:
(May 6, 2021 at 1:51 pm)Nomad Wrote: Of the five writers:

1) Tacitus was writing about 80-100 years after Jesus' alleged death and not about Jesus either but a group which as far as we can tell were called Chrestians or followers of Chrestus (the oldest extant copy has a clear rubbing out of the e in "Chrestianos" and insterting of an i to make it "Christianos".  So no, not a reference to Jesus, maybe a reference to christians, though not likely.

2) The Babylonian Talmud was written after 200CE when christianity was an established religion in direct competition to judaism.  It mentioning Jesus has no bearing on whether Jesus was a historical figure, no more than books refuting the Hellenic religion are a proof of Zeus' existence.  Also, as a religious document, it is not "secular".

3) Josephus, see above.  We know he didn't write about Jesus and we can pretty much point out who inserted the references to Jesus in Josephus' works; Eusebius in c 325CE.

4) There is no evidence that Mara ben-Serapion wrote about Jesus.  That is simply a post-hoc justification by christian apologists to give a fake legitimacy to their mythology.  And the fact that he was talking about a Jewish king that was murdered by necessity precludes him talking about Jesus.

5) Pliny wasn't talking about Jesus, he was talking about a crazy cult known as christians who were causing trouble for the good governance of the provence he was Pro-Consul.  Not evidence for Jesus, no more than Bergoglio in Rome today is.

So Drippy your link is nought for five.  How does it feel to be constantly shown to be a luddite know-nothing mountebank?

Nice summary, but do you really think that Drich cares about this? If he did he would already know it, but he doesn't know, and he will never care.
hey captain cave man.. refuted on the website i referenced.. the web site had the foresight to refute point by point every old worn out objection you guys keep telling yourselves. including the ones your buddy used. I did not see a need to humiliate the 'slower side of AF' by copy and pasting information that could be gleaned from the first page of the reference material given. 

Because me highlighting and taking the time to explain what is on the website i referenced should be condescending as hell to anyone with 1/2 a brain.. but because 2 of you idiots think it a good idea to see how well atheist arguments from the mid 90s hold up, i'd thought id show you and your peers how lazy, and slow you guys are, that you cant ever be bother to check reference material/learn anything new.. grow intellectually, that once you make up your mind it is locked in stone.. Even if that stone work makes you look like full on (what the politically correct term for retard now?) college educated, professors.. (you can plug in whatever woke term suits you)  Hehe
Reply
#73
RE: Imagine this...
(May 13, 2021 at 1:39 pm)Drich Wrote: like it or not my guy luke and everyone else who documented a gospel that wasn't there did so as a scribe or from a point of documenting history. you only dismiss them because they were later assimilated into the bible.. 
I dismiss luke as history because luke isn't history, and luke was no historian.  I have no interest in taking magic book out of the context in which it was written.  That context, was not history, and was not secular.

Quote: It's flat intellectual dishonesty to dismiss the whole bible and everyone's individual work as religious. theses are the people who havent any  interest in truth only an easy intellectual way out without looking at or considering anything that might threaten their prejudice narrative or sense of superority.
You appear to have a problem with words, yet again.  Nothing in magic book is accurately described as secular, or history, or secular history.

Quote:again, once you look at first person records, the historical jesus fills out to the gospel specifications. again not letting you dismiss the accounts of luke and mark just because you say so/just because you are not intellectually honest to admit that those two by all rights were non affiliated historians/scribes. so suck it up, move on or your welcome to try again. this time we will need some citations. not just the fact that their work was included in the bible 300 years after or some biased bull shite commentary by some contemporary hater.  Rather we need to see primary sourced material that shows luke and mark to be a shill for the church/conspired to be included in a religious book of magic. (your standard of proof not mine just holding you to it as what is good for the goose is also good for the atheist)
 I'm informing you that none of the candidate reconstructions for a historical jesus are your christ.  You can argue until you're blue in the face that I'm unfairly rejecting your boyfriend for this or that reason - but I'm not talking about your boyfriend at all, and neither are those historians in describing the historical jesus.

You believe in christ and reject the random jew who lived and died and was forgotten, the historical jesus. Ironically, the formation of a religion out of the idea of some such guy was probably the most significant factor in our knowing nothing about any real man behind the myths today. As you so helpfully pointed out - christians had a strange way of curating literature about their god as soon as they captured the authority of the state.

Personally, I find the notion that a christian can be embarrassed laughable in the present moment and company - but...speaking of christian shame and curation and arguments from the critereon of embarrassment - we have no idea what the authors of those stories would or would not have found embarrassing..even if we do know what their later anthologizers did find embarrassing about them. I don't believe in the historical jesus any more than you do. I don't think that the arguments are compelling, and there's no evidence to consider...so that's pretty much a dead end for me.
It's bad for the rest of the world when americans are paid so little they can only afford chocolate mined by child slaves and clothes made in overseas sweatshops. - Robyn Pennacchia
Reply
#74
RE: Imagine this...
(May 13, 2021 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote: Because me highlighting and taking the time to explain what is on the website i referenced should be condescending as hell to anyone with 1/2 a brain.. but because 2 of you idiots think it a good idea to see how well atheist arguments from the mid 90s hold up, i'd thought id show you and your peers how lazy, and slow you guys are, that you cant ever be bother to check reference material/learn anything new.. grow intellectually, that once you make up your mind it is locked in stone.. Even if that stone work makes you look like full on (what the politically correct term for retard now?) college educated, professors.. (you can plug in whatever woke term suits you)  Hehe



teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How do Christians imagine 2nd coming of Jesus? Fake Messiah 39 1673 September 15, 2020 at 11:01 am
Last Post: Rhizomorph13
  Something I want you to imagine Lemonvariable72 68 14304 September 30, 2013 at 11:51 am
Last Post: Tonus
  Imagine a spiritual age, where the world never ends Castle 34 10299 June 14, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Last Post: Rhizomorph13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)