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.
I have shown you that they didn't write them but like all the verifiable evidence that you are hit in the face with, you simply deny.
You have not given me any verifiable evidence because no one can prove who the authors of the gospels are. That means the ones assigned to them may be right.
Quote:
LOL! Don't you? Think of that word we can't mention.
I give you permission o use it about me. It will verify the kind of person you really are better than anything else you can do.
You have not given me any verifiable evidence because no one can prove who the authors of the gospels are. That means the ones assigned to them may be right.
Wrong, Matthew used Mark, so is not an independent eye witness account. And John had many authors, so again is not an eyewitness account.
And the titles tells us they were all second hand, as I said before. But I forgot, you simply invented the excuse that I was ignorant of what I know.
Quite so old beansprout. John is the only one to record the miracle of Lazarus, a miracle so incredible that it could hardly have escaped the attention of Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke had it really happened. Why did they not make mention of this miracle? My bet is... because it never happened.
That is one of the silliest arguments you have in your arsenal---If only one writers mentions something, it can't be true. If they all mentioned it, you would accuse them of plagiarism.
That is one of the silliest arguments you have in your arsenal---If only one writers mentions something, it can't be true. If they all mentioned it, you would accuse them of plagiarism.
Your investigation may not be complete and it wasn't.
Quote:
And as you claimed by proxy that Phlegon mentioned Jesus, then yes, this IS for a small part about what Phlegon actually said. So clearly you are just posting links you have not read without doing any investigation
I have not claimed by proxy or anything else about what Phleon did.
Which one of the links I mentioned did not mention Jesus by name?
Your investigation may not be complete and it wasn't.
My investigation is complete, and now you have resorted to invention. OP proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I have not claimed by proxy or anything else about what Phleon did.
Which one of the links I mentioned did not mention Jesus by name?
So you did and did not claim anything by proxy? This is our problem, we are talking to a man who is ignorant about what he talking about.
And once again, Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Hadrian do not mention Jesus by name, and Thallus and Phlegon are not even talking about Jesus (or Christianity).
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 05-24-2019 at 08:26 AM..
I can show the evidence why those who appeared to mention his name are most likely interpolations (Josephus, Tacitus);
Talk is cheap, do so.
Quote:
I can demonstrate those who did not mention Jesus (Phlegon, Seutonius, Hadrian, Thallus, Pliny the Younger); and I can demonstrate those responding to the gospels, and therefore not independent confirmation.[
Talk is cheap , do so.
Quote:
You can not prove Tacitus and Josephus DID mention Jesus, you can only assert it.
I can't but Wikepedia can. Here is one of heir comments on Tacitus.
"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. [5] [6] [7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus ."
Quote:
I know what the discussion is about, you should try joining it instead of your usual tactics of denial.
Since it is about no secular historian mentioning Jesus, you lose. Not only does Taitus mention Jesus, he mentions His resurrection.
You have not given me any verifiable evidence because no one can prove who the authors of the gospels are. That means the ones assigned to them may be right.
:
Or they may not be. Which is more likely?
Given the fact that we have no evidence connecting these gospels to their alleged authors, and the church itself and the printed bible admits the names are merely tradition, I think it much more likely that the ones assigned are really only random names.
Doesn’t matter much. We still have no evidence that anything mentioned in the gospels actually happened.
I can't but Wikepedia can. Here is one of heir comments on Tacitus.
"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. [5] [6] [7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus ."
Since it is about no secular historian mentioning Jesus, you lose.
No, relying on an argument from authority instead of looking at the evidence means you lose again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not only does Taitus mention Jesus, he mentions His resurrection.
Of course the passage does, because it was a Christian interpolation. This is exactly what we would expect with an interpolation. Thank you for providing that evidence.
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.
