New religion

[Minimalist]

Kindly note my remark "at the time"

Yes, and I asked...and repeat "who?"

We have the alleged history of Tacitus blaming Nero but not a single other ancient writer - xtian or Roman - knows anything about it which strongly suggests that the passage is a fraud.

Suetonius makes a reference to Chrestus and his followers ( Chrestianos ) and later makes a reference to "Christianos" (Christians) but says nothing else and we may have had a later scribe merely correcting what he assumes to be a spelling error.

Otherwise - we wait until Lucian of Samosata making jokes about them in the mid 2d century and then Celsus who actually discussed their belief system even later in the 2d century.

Oddly, Celsus seems to suggest that some persecution by the authorities would be a good thing which suggests that it had not begun as of the time he was writing.

[Carnavon]

You are quite correct, it was not really supporting my argument. The aspect that I considered was that Christianity was strongly opposed by the religious leaders at the time and they could easily have proven falsehoods if there were indeed any. Such as the claims that Jesus died, there was darkness at the time of his death, the tomb was empty despite being guarded, and he appeared to many (500+) after his resurrection.

Firstly, you may be surprised to know that the classical arguments against christian god boys are actually older than the jesus narrative to begin with. They didn't have anything to prove false. Why are you assuming that they would even give a shit. Early christians weren't exactly the upper crust and cream of the crop buddy. Those things happened in a book, just like the rest of the book.

I can think of at least a few reasons why Jesus and his followers were not accepted and persecuted. 1) The Jews were serious about their religion and Jesus claimed to be God - which to them was blasphemy. 2) Judaism was a faith based on works (consider the rich young ruler) whereas the Gospel of Jesus Christ is salvation through grace - not depending on what we do, but on God's grace extended to us. Lee Strobel's testimony speaks of that. We do not have to be "good enough" (for if that was the case, we are all doomed - even by our own standards of being "good"). This was contrary to their beliefs where they depended on obeying the law of Moses, lineage and being children of Israel and this was contrary to their whole belief system and what they built their lives upon3) Christians caused a division in the church and this at times led to upheaval which was unacceptable. 4) If we consider presently the case of Youcef nadarkhani, where all he has to do is renounce his Christian faith, and his life will be spared, as by Muslim faith apostasy is punishable by death. 4) As was the case with Jim Elliot and his mates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opQ1m9kVy...F&index=19, they were killed because "of their fear that all foreigners were their enemies)
As far as disciples were not part of the "upper crust" of society is 100% true. This has no meaning whatsoever or do you suggest that those of lower intellectual ability or lower social standing than yourself is of less value? Jesus is not (and Christians should also not be) a respecter of persons - whether black or white, clever or not so clever, rich or poor, strong or weak, disabled or able-bodied). Do you disagree?

---

Christians do not ignore the Old Testament. To the contrary, much of what is in the new testament refers to the Old Testament.

If I remember correctly, did not jesus say forget the old gods and forget the old ways?

No, not quite (Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.)
He did however indicate that there is more to being righteous than keeping the law outwardly: It is also what we have in our heart:
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The purpose of the law is to reveal sin, making us aware that we all stand guilty. The Jews still considered that righteousness came by the law.

[Carnavon]

Kindly note my remark "at the time"

Yes, and I asked...and repeat "who?"

We have the alleged history of Tacitus blaming Nero but not a single other ancient writer - xtian or Roman - knows anything about it which strongly suggests that the passage is a fraud.

Suetonius makes a reference to Chrestus and his followers ( Chrestianos ) and later makes a reference to "Christianos" (Christians) but says nothing else and we may have had a later scribe merely correcting what he assumes to be a spelling error.

Otherwise - we wait until Lucian of Samosata making jokes about them in the mid 2d century and then Celsus who actually discussed their belief system even later in the 2d century.

Oddly, Celsus seems to suggest that some persecution by the authorities would be a good thing which suggests that it had not begun as of the time he was writing.

So in fact you do not have any scholarly information that contradicts what is written?
Your suggestion of fraud has no proof provided, only mere speculation.
It would seem that Tacitus was a respected historian and not Christian and it is escapes me why he would have claimed something which was untrue or a matter fraudulently entered. To what end? To distort history?
Let us stick to what can be proven from reliable sources.

[MilesTailsPrower]

Nah... Your religion is wrong.

But, do not look down! The Church of the Yogage is here to spread the great word of the the Yoga Lord originally brought to this earth by the Prophet, Sblob.

Praise the Yoga Lord!

[Minimalist]

Let us stick to what can be proven from reliable sources.

Fine - first thing we do is throw your fucking bible out the window. That is totally unreliable.

Tacitus was, as you say, a respected historian ( of the 2d century...not the first) but his work has come down to us in only two badly damaged manuscripts and both of those are copies of copies of copies made in the middle ages.

For such a respected historian it does seem odd that not a single xtian or pagan writer ever mentions Nero and the alleged persecution of xtians for the Great Fire in Rome.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm

The big question is why the Church Fathers know Nothing of this important information from Tacitus? The two partial manuscripts were found in the Medici library dating from 1313 to 1375. It is only after this time, much after, that the story became almost an Article of Faith about the early Church.

The closest we get to what Tacitus is alleged to have written is in the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus which dates from the early 5th century and which does not mention Tacitus as a source OR any of this Pilate the "procurator" bullshit.

If you want to go up against me in history you'd better do your homework.

[Epimethean]

He's an xtian: He has no need for facts or accuracy. He'll take any pretense or supposition, blow it full of "faith" and "belief" and will go for the bullshit gold.

[Carnavon]

Let us stick to what can be proven from reliable sources.

Fine - first thing we do is throw your fucking bible out the window. That is totally unreliable.

Tacitus was, as you say, a respected historian ( of the 2d century...not the first) but his work has come down to us in only two badly damaged manuscripts and both of those are copies of copies of copies made in the middle ages.

For such a respected historian it does seem odd that not a single xtian or pagan writer ever mentions Nero and the alleged persecution of xtians for the Great Fire in Rome.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm

The big question is why the Church Fathers know Nothing of this important information from Tacitus? The two partial manuscripts were found in the Medici library dating from 1313 to 1375. It is only after this time, much after, that the story became almost an Article of Faith about the early Church.

The closest we get to what Tacitus is alleged to have written is in the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus which dates from the early 5th century and which does not mention Tacitus as a source OR any of this Pilate the "procurator" bullshit.

If you want to go up against me in history you'd better do your homework.

Yes, one can speculate about various things but does not add to our knowledge. Credibility of sources is of great importance, hence my question why would you wish to throw the Bible out the window as the facts stated therein has not been disproved and for instance archaeology vindicates it trustworthiness rather than disproves it.

There are a great number of articles on this, one of which contains the following "Until recently, there was no contemporary evidence outside the Bible for Pilate's existence (although Tacitus, Josephus, and Philo all wrote about him). Then in 1961, Italian archaeologists excavating the theatre at Caesarea found this stone inscription of Pontius Pilate. Coins have also been found dating from Pilate's rule as governor." (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.php)
and also:
"The story has only just begun and there will be echoes from Eber for generations to come. It is at least thought-provoking that findings such as those at Ebla consistently support the Bible as a thoroughly acceptable record." (http://www.icr.org/article/ebla-its-impa...e-records/)
Thus, in essence what you offer is mere speculation whereas what I put forward for the reliability of the Bible is verifiable fact. Now if I was an independent observer, I know what I would believe.

[frankiej]

Eternity of shit and yog-cocoons for this one.

[Epimethean]

"what I put forward for the reliability of the Bible is verifiable fact."

LOL. Based on-oh, right: the fact that the bible says so in your comfy translation which was prepared by men whose business it is to make that antiquated old dinosaur of a book sound reasonable to the modern English reader.

The "facts" you are citing are spelled with that invisible "f."

[Minimalist]

There are a great number of articles on this, one of which contains the following "Until recently, there was no contemporary evidence outside the Bible for Pilate's existence (although Tacitus, Josephus, and Philo all wrote about him). Then in 1961, Italian archaeologists excavating the theatre at Caesarea found this stone inscription of Pontius Pilate. Coins have also been found dating from Pilate's rule as governor." (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.php)

Thanks for trotting this particular item out of hiding as it shows the extent to which xtians will go to pump up their nonsense.

Yes - we had no contemporary evidence "at all" for Pilate ( except Philo who died c 50 AD was a contemporary of Pilate which kind of blows the whole statement out of the water!)...and then there are the coins issued by the Roman prefects of Judaea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Procu...ius_Pilate

and then there is the near contemporaneous writing of Josephus ( he was born the year after Pilate was dismissed by Lucius Vitellius.)

The Caesarea inscription shows that Pilate was aware of his proper title
"Prefect" rather than the highly dubious Tacitus interpolation which calls him by the later title "Procurator."

So, yeah - if we didn't have so much evidence we would have had to rely on the Caesarea inscription....but we did.

BTW, both Philo and Josephus show a Pilate who was an arrogant prick quite unlike the vacillating pussy described in the so-called "gospels." Given what was expected of a Roman magistrate it seems that Philo and Josephus are a little closer to the reality.