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.
Christians undoubtedly exist, but that does not mean that Christ actually existed, or if he existed, was divine.
Irrelevant. Christians are followers of a man referred to as Christ. It makes no sense to pretend there was no such man. Using all the beliefs about the man to dispute his existence or the validity of secular references to him is disingenuous.
Other way round was it? I recalled that one of them referenced the Biblical darkness. If there's not much else to do, I might track those passages down again.
I have found the passage in Eusebius. Talking about Jesus, he says he "underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius (32 AD). Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (32 AD), a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour (noon) that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."
The green is Phlegon, the orange is another Greek compendium. But "another" in Greek is very similar to Thallus, so the orange may be the passage Thallus actually wrote (with his name 'corrected' later). We know he wrote a very basic history covering 2,000 years on 3 scrolls. Note that he follows the order of Phlegon, the solar eclipse, the earthquake in Bithynia, and the buildings in Nicea, so it is likely he is using Phlegon, and neither are talking about Jesus.
Except that many of them WERE bad. Really bad! Like "Take no thought for the morrow".
very true. and some are really good.
and, that is a different line of logic than discussing the validity of the gospels. They were a set of books of that time. They were never intended to be a history lesson past using them for how man has treated other men (and women and undecideds).
Debating with literal people that need those things to be literally true/false loses sight of the whole thing. Not that we don't do it, but we need to keep it n perspective. Treat you enemy/neighbor with dignity. Don't take any law/religion literally in every case. Use your common sense and there are idea's that supersede any individual life.
Understanding that is the way. Living those notions will tear some families apart when a brother, mother, sister, stands up against a family that is hurting other people.
Irrelevant. Christians are followers of a man referred to as Christ. It makes no sense to pretend there was no such man.
True, but as no one is pretending, one must ask what your point is.
What we DO have is evidence. Paul calls Jesus an angel; and Hebrews says he was a divine being who made his sacrifice only once, in heaven (contradicting the gospels), and one passage ("if he were to walk the earth") reads as if he was never on earth.
It is not until the gospels that we get a reference to a 'historical' man, almost 50 to 100 years after he allegedly died.
This does not mean there was not Jesus, but it is very strong evidence that the 'historical' Jesus was a later piece of fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Using all the beliefs about the man to dispute his existence or the validity of secular references to him is disingenuous.
No one is using the beliefs about Jesus to dispute the validity of secular references to him, so it is your straw man that is disingenuous.
What we are doing is looking at those alleged secular references and pointing to the problems they have.
Other way round was it? I recalled that one of them referenced the Biblical darkness. If there's not much else to do, I might track those passages down again.
Incidentally, the visible quote of Arach's post shows that he is talking balls again. If he doesn't know that the Basis of Christianity is on the resurrection and that this is accepted as if not true at least a reporting of (perhaps misunderstood) actual events, and how this is the single most important matter in the whole US religion debate, then his lack of understanding of the matter renders his posting not worth the reading
you are absolutely wrong. and the reason you even post this crap post is that you know, one on one, with me, you lose. so fast infact you get DM's telling you to run as fast as you can because your sect of atheism gets trounced, debunked, and smacked down by common sense, logic, and reason.
Your post here, again, your post, shows exactly how fundy-think-type you are.
its not gospels we are fighting. it people that take the gospels literally true and literally false that we need to stop.
so I see foreign anti-religion types, you, raf, and harry, coming over here to attack literally true bible thumpers with your literally false bible thumping. yeah, you guys have the real logic. your post here, as most of your post do, show exactly how narrow minded, black/white thinking you are.
which wouldn't be so bad if you didn't come across our borders on your crusade to save us evil Americans middle of the road atheist.
True, but as no one is pretending, one must ask what your point is.
What we DO have is evidence. Paul calls Jesus an angel; and Hebrews says he was a divine being who made his sacrifice only once, in heaven (contradicting the gospels), and one passage ("if he were to walk the earth") reads as if he was never on earth.
It is not until the gospels that we get a reference to a 'historical' man, almost 50 to 100 years after he allegedly died.
This does not mean there was not Jesus, but it is very strong evidence that the 'historical' Jesus was a later piece of fiction.
No one is using the beliefs about Jesus to dispute the validity of secular references to him, so it is your straw man that is disingenuous.
What we are doing is looking at those alleged secular references and pointing to the problems they have.
at this point in time, is it more reasonable to claim
a man named Jesus was going around teaching against authority and the evils of taking religion literally and was killed for it?
or
is it more reasonable to say man didn't do that?
In fact, you guys should taking the angle that Jesus was teaching to exactly what you guys are trying to do. But you guys are so narrowed minded that you can't see past your selves.
you guys are so focused on your statement of belief about god/religion that you can't talk about anything outside of your statements of beliefs. your are Fundy think type atheist that make us look exactly like a religion.
you are absolutely wrong. and the reason you even post this crap post is that you know, one on one, with me, you lose. so fast infact you get DM's telling you to run as fast as you can because your sect of atheism gets trounced, debunked, and smacked down by common sense, logic, and reason.
Your post here, again, your post, shows exactly how fundy-think-type you are.
its not gospels we are fighting. it people that take the gospels literally true and literally false that we need to stop.
so I see foreign anti-religion types, you, raf, and harry, coming over here to attack literally true bible thumpers with your literally false bible thumping. yeah, you guys have the real logic. your post here, as most of your post do, show exactly how narrow minded, black/white thinking you are.
which wouldn't be so bad if you didn't come across our borders on your crusade to save us evil Americans middle of the road atheist.
Lol, doing history is attacking.
And how can we be coming to the US when the internet is world wide?
And how can we be coming to the US when the internet is world wide?
just answer the question
is it more reasonable to claim a guy (certainly could have been named jesus) was going around teaching about the problem with literal religion and they killed him for it 2000 years ago.
or
it is more reasonable to say it never happened?
if you are a sciency as you claim (i doubt myself) just answer the question.
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.
