Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nearly all of the historical scholars of Jesus' time period regard Jesus as a historical figure. Those on this board taking the opposite view certainly are at odds with these scholars. In fact, John Dominic Crossan has said that he can't think of a serious scholar who doesn't regard Jesus as a historical figure.
It is just a symptom of atheist denialism. Their entire mindset is one of denial. It is easy to deny and ask for evidence or proof of just about anything. Once someone is in that mindset, it is just annoying and tedious to deal with them.
It is just a symptom of atheist denialism. Their entire mindset is one of denial. It is easy to deny and ask for evidence or proof of just about anything. Once someone is in that mindset, it is just annoying and tedious to deal with them.
It is a symptom of the theist mindset that they make assumptions about atheists and grab and run with it because it suits them. I posted a number of vids on the non- existence of the (gospel) Jesus (which you either didn't watch or immediately forgot) that complained about how many atheists still argued for a basic historical Jesus - as I do myself.
I shall not comment on your revealing irritation at people who unaccountably ask for evidence of this or that claim when it begins to look dubious, rather than just take the word of those who believe it, other than ...
It is a symptom of the theist mindset that they make assumptions about atheists and grab and run with it because it suits them. I posted a number of vids on the non- existence of the (gospel) Jesus (which you either didn't watch or immediately forgot) that complained about how many atheists still argued for a basic historical Jesus - as I do myself.
I shall not comment on your revealing irritation at people who unaccountably ask for evidence of this or that claim when it begins to look dubious, rather than just take the word of those who believe it, other than ...
We all have such preconcieved wrong ideas about the other and that is expected or should be.
A Christian trying to prove Jesus lived is useless, it just is, it is a none argument. NONE.
If the truth relies on the proof of a man living, then it simply is not the truth.
Problem is, all these Christians are speaking about the first Gentile converts to Judaism and what is said to all those converts to Judaism, and then from outside the religion Jesus loved and practiced, they speak of the religion of Christ as if it is the same religion they are in.
Guess what?
Jesus practiced Judaism, and our claim of Jesus is that he came as the hero of Judaism.
His purpose was not bringing judgment, his purpose was to add to the chosen nation, thats all, the chosen didn't need to be saved, the Gentiles needed to be added to the nation of God and so a Jew offered a betrothal for Gentiles to convert to the religion of God to become one with God's people.
It is absurd to think anything different.
Jesus came as a mediator to the covenant given to Ephraim and Judah in a marriage where ALL THOSE OF EPHRAIM WILLINGLY BECOME VIRGINS, and Judah is the male, NOT THE FEMALE. It is a marriage, not a divorce. Christians are living with a man they are NOT MARRIED TO. (Judah)
Jesus came to mediate the marriage of Jews and Gentiles but when he came and should have found every Jew with his own legal congregation, he came finding Jews separated from Gentiles.
Jesus came after Israel had been lost into the Gentile nations for 700 years, and the Jews did not seem interested in offering those lost tribes of Gentiles a betrothal to come and convert back into Israel.
So by his own hand he became a Jew offering a betrothal that any Jew could have offered but didn't.
Huh! that is either an outright lie or you are confusing me with someone else. Please show us all where I DID THIS
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I have always had my doubts about it so for to say I fought tooth and nail is a outright lie, or as I said you have me mixed up with someone else.
No. It was you. You were arguing tooth and nail regarding how Josephus was a reliable and trustworthy historian when you were using him for supporting your argument and then the discussion moved on to something else (Nativity I think), or maybe it was even another thread in which TRANS used Josephus to show you that you were wrong. You then claimed that Josephus was always making mistakes, was 'all over the map' regarding something and that we really couldn't rely on him as a reliable and trustworthy historian. A bit like you decried Carrier in one part of the thread and then used him to support your argument later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Since we may have to dismiss Josephus as an historical source that you would want to reference, I looked up Philo, a contemporary of Emperor Gaius (Caligula) at the time the apostles were in Jerusalem and Paul had recently converted. Mainly interested in Hellenistic-Jewish philosophy, he doesn't write as much history as Josephus, but does mention Pilate in some detail. Mainly the imperial insignia business. He never says a word about Jesus or the apostles - even as an aside.
Quite! Philo of Alexandria wrote the to Gaius (Caligula), c. 40 CE, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prick Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed reportedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action.
Yet....nary a word. Clearly, the story had not been invented in 40 CE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lat 32
Nearly all of historical scholars of Jesus' time period regard Jesus as a historical figure. Those on this board taking the opposite view certainly are at odds with these scholars. In fact, John Dominic Crossan has said that he can't think of serious scholar who doesn't regard Jesus as a historical figure.
We all have such preconcieved wrong ideas about the other and that is expected or should be.
A Christian trying to prove Jesus lived is useless, it just is, it is a none argument. NONE.
If the truth relies on the proof of a man living, then it simply is not the truth.
Problem is, all these Christians are speaking about the first Gentile converts to Judaism and what is said to all those converts to Judaism, and then from outside the religion Jesus loved and practiced, they speak of the religion of Christ as if it is the same religion they are in.
Guess what?
Jesus practiced Judaism, and our claim of Jesus is that he came as the hero of Judaism.
His purpose was not bringing judgment, his purpose was to add to the chosen nation, thats all, the chosen didn't need to be saved, the Gentiles needed to be added to the nation of God and so a Jew offered a betrothal for Gentiles to convert to the religion of God to become one with God's people.
It is absurd to think anything different.
Jesus came as a mediator to the covenant given to Ephraim and Judah in a marriage where ALL THOSE OF EPHRAIM WILLINGLY BECOME VIRGINS, and Judah is the male, NOT THE FEMALE. It is a marriage, not a divorce. Christians are living with a man they are NOT MARRIED TO. (Judah)
Jesus came to mediate the marriage of Jews and Gentiles but when he came and should have found every Jew with his own legal congregation, he came finding Jews separated from Gentiles.
Jesus came after Israel had been lost into the Gentile nations for 700 years, and the Jews did not seem interested in offering those lost tribes of Gentiles a betrothal to come and convert back into Israel.
So by his own hand he became a Jew offering a betrothal that any Jew could have offered but didn't.
Good point. One of the hardest things to get over to the Christian is that the beliefs of Paul were Not Christianity as it is today - and i mean the essential doctrine of the trinity that turned Jesus into God. To Paul, Jesus was a man, not a god. This is clear in Paul. but the Christians will not understand what they read (assuming they read it).
And Paul himself had moved away from the essential Judaism of the apostles and their followers.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2019 at 01:08 AM..
No. It was you. It was the argument by which you put me on your ignore list. You were arguing tooth and nail regarding how Josephus was a reliable and trustworthy historian when you were using him for supporting your argument and then the discussion moved on to something else ()Nativity I think), or maybe it was even another thread in which TRANS used Josephus to show you that you were wrong. You then claimed that Josephus was always making mistakes, was 'all over the map' regarding something and that we really couldn't rely on him as a reliable and trustworthy historian.
I thought it was he. I'd love to be able to link and quote it, but I couldn't track it down -I suspect I was Arq at the time - and I was happy to settle for Pneuma accepting that the Flavian testament was evidence of nothing.
Quote:
Quite! Philo of Alexandria wrote the to Gaius (Caligula), c. 40 CE, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prick Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed reportedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action.
Yet....nary a word. Clearly, the story had not been invented in 40 CE
Well posted, Mate. Incidentally, I came across something in Philo that was damned interesting....
The Works of Philo Judaeus – Flaccus, VI.
(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;....
This "Carabbas" remind you of anyone?
Quote:
That wouldn't be the Jesus of the Bible though.
Quite so. It's astonishing how Christian apologists fail to understand that a'historical' Jesus is not at all the same thing as a validated Gospel -Jesus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2019 at 12:35 AM..
Good point. One of the hardest things to get over to the Christian is that the beliefs of Paul were Not Christianity as it is today - and i mean the essential doctrine of the trinity that turned Jesus into God. To Paul, Jesus was a man, not a god. This is clear in Paul. but the Christians will not understand what they read (assuming they read it).
And Paul himself had moved away from the essential Judaism of the apostles and their followers.
I thought it was he. I'd love to be able to link and quote it, but I couldn't track it down -I suspect I was Arq at the time - and I was happy to settle for Pneuma accepting that the Flavian testament was evidence of nothing.
Definitely him old snot-rag. Too many posts in that thread to go rummaging for it. He also slagged off Carrier in the same thread...and then later used Carrier to support his claim that either 'Procurator' or 'Prefect' could be used.
Quote:
Well posted, Mate. Incidentally, I came across something in Philo that was damned interesting....
The Works of Philo Judaeus – Flaccus, VI.
(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;....
This is true. Just as Paul hits the Christian nail on the head when he said that, if the resurrection isn't true, then the (Christian) belief is so much dross. Is it any wonder that i regard the Gospels - and the resurrection claim, specifically - as the matter on which Christianity stands or falls. That's why Lane Craig (who is supposed to be one of their best) sticks in my mind as an apologists for the resurrection. And it took no time to take him apart. Though I just did a one - sided job, to be sure. But nobody contested it.
Definitely him old snot-rag. Too many posts in that thread to go rummaging for it. He also slagged off Carrier in the same thread...and then later used Carrier to support his claim that either 'Procurator' or 'Prefect' could be used.
Ummmm!
Snot-rag??? Give me a link and I'll find it. Telling me I was lying. Don't recall Carrier, though. Might be the one where he argued for 'James' as 'Brother of Jesus'. It might have been the nativity (which was a dedicated thread, I believe) but might have been another
I was quite impressed by his Expertise in showing that Pilate could have been both Procurator (tax) and Prefect (military) and didn't realise 'till later that this didn't change anything. It merely meant that Tacitus and Gospels assumed - since other governors of Judea were procurators - that Pilate was, too; and they didn't have first hand knowledge that Pilate was prefect. And we today didn't know, either, until that stone turned up.
So the stone doesn't confound unbelievers as Pneuma claimed, but undermined the reliability of the gospels.
Hang on....
No, dammit. 'Procurator' seems to appear nowhere in the Bible.
"The Greek agemon , rendered "governor" in the Authorized Version, is applied in the New Testament to the officer who presided over the imperial province of Judea. It is used of Pontius Pilate, (Matthew 27:1) ... of Felix, Acts 23, 24, and of Festus. (Acts 26:30) "
I did a search and 'governor' tends to be rendered 'procurator' following Tacitus. Which rather means that Tacitus on Jesus can hardly be a Christian forgery but is Tacitus assuming that Pilate was a procurator like the later governors, but did not get his correct title from Roman records. So was just repeating the Christian claims of the time.
It rather looks like it puts Pilate crucifying Jesus into a historical context and the total -mythicists have some work to do.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2019 at 01:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
