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.
Fail....Most of the posts you have made are in support of the bible, not Jesus, but I'll back track and see if I can find anything.
Refute them all, one by one, what difference does it make, Bible or Jesus, refute each one, come on man, step to the plate. I have noted two of your refutes.
And there were many such hero stories lost . . . so what defines the genuine article? . . . the one who succeeded. Jesus has truly been the messiah, the Saviour, the one the Kings of Europe bowed to, the one the Jews rejected has become the cornerstone, etc. Success is a great confirmer of the genuine article . . . 2000+ years of it is more than a bit impressive.
And how did it succeed? Through the forced supression of others, through conquest and death ..... Actions like the Spanish Inquisiton, Burning witches at the stake, THAT is how it has succeeded for all these years.
Look around now, it is failing. It is a declining religion. That is not a happy or sad or good or bad thing; that is the normal progression/evolution of religions. Christianity will, thousands of years from now, be tiny minority in the religious world, because newer and better things will catch on. People are like that. Ask a mormon if you don't believe me.
Right. I'd heard that. Of course, by the time Tacitus was writing, I believe that the govenorship of Judea had become a Procurator's job, but I may be wrong there.
No you're not wrong on that. It was the case when Tacitus wrote the passage in about 115CE. The title was changed by Claudius from 'prefect' to 'procurator' in 41CE. Pilate was governor of Judea from 26CE to 37CE so at no time during that tenure could he have held the title of 'procurator' ascribed to him by Tacitus.
I am claiming that everything I have posted on this thread is proof of Jesus, and for the second time I am asking you to refute each one.
Peace.
Mikey, you ought to see that none of this proves a darn thing.
"....royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. Mathura was the capital of the Yadavas, to which Krishna's parents Vasudeva and Devaki belonged...
(Mathura pronunciation (help·info) (IAST mathurā) (Hindi: मथुरा) is a holy city in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. It is located approximately 50 km north of Agra, and 150 km south of Delhi; about twenty kilometers from holy Vrindavan.[1] It is the administrative centre of Mathura District of Uttar Pradesh. During the ancient period, Mathura was an economic hub, located at the junction of important caravan routes....
(Local hearsay identifies the legendary "Kurukshetra" with a nearby obscure hamlet, and with the active abetment of the state government, it is presently experiencing a tourist boom[citation needed]. A few kilometeres from Kurukshetra is the village known as "Amin", where there are remnants of a fort and it is said to be Abhimanyu's fort. In some ancient Hindu texts, the boundaries of Kurukshetra correspond roughly to the state of Haryana.)
[This place is for real, man]
"...raised by his foster parents, Yasoda [38] and Nanda in Gokula ...
(This town is about 6km southeast of Mathura. This is an important place for followers of Vallabhacarya because he stayed here for a while.
Vitthalanatha, the son of Vallabha established the town of Gokula.)
[You can see that actual place, man!]
"...From the woodlands of Vrindavan Krishna travelled to Dwaraka, his capital on the Eastern sea of India Dwaraka,..(and) settled in Vrindavana..."
(Vrindavan pronunciation (help·info) (alternate spellings Vrindaban or Brindavan or Brundavan), or Vraj in Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh, India is a town on the site of an ancient forest which is the region where Lord Krishna spent his childhood days. It lies in the Braj region.)
[We know the place - they even got the forest, man!]
".. Krishna is believed to have lifted the Govardhana hill..."
(Place to Stay near Govardhana HillSri Giriraj Darshan (0565 815-797), just north of Jatipura on the Parikrama Path (above one-fourth km past Jatipura), is a peaceful place that has a good view of Govardhana Hill
from the roof. Rooms with bath and hot water are Rs 200)
[Dambit man! you can stay where Krishna did a miracle for 200 Rupees, now why you can't believe in Krishna, I don't undertand man..]
"..serpent Kaliya, who previously poisoned the waters of Yamuna river,..."
(major river of northern India, primarily in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh states. One of the country’s most sacred rivers, it rises on the
slopes of the Banderpunch massif in the Great Himalayas near Yamnotri (Jamnotri), Uttarakhand. It flows in a southerly direction through the
Himalayan foothills and, exiting Uttarakhand, onto the Indo-Gangetic Plain, along the Uttar Pradesh–Haryana state border. The Eastern and
Western Yamuna canals are fed from the river at that point.)
[Gollygosh man! there is the actual river where this theyar serpent was thrashing his stuff...well, what more PROOF do you need, man?]
You get the point. Or you should. It's not hard to come up with stories based on real places or to even mytholigise real events or persons. What you are trying to do is argue from the particular to the general in a way better than just a fallacy. Sure. There's a lot of fact in the Bible, as one would expect from a religious book designed to explain the supremacy of one tribe's god and his plan through history. You then argue that the support for the historical and geographic factuality of much of the Bible should be taken as support for the aspects which we would consider mythological.
It isn't - no more than finding places and even persons in the Bhagavad Gita proves the stories about Krishna.
The Bible of course doesn't even lend credibility to the Jesus story for a number of reasons. It would be profitable to discuss them for your, our and everyone else's benefit, but we first need to see that discussion is going to be worthwhile. We don't want to waste time talking with a religious wacko and, while I don't want to cast nasturshums, rerefence to the Jesus tomb does not inspire confidence - hardly anyone takes that seriously now. Nor does your reference to my showing up of Tacitus et al as not amounting to a damn and you still saying that they were supportive evidence.
What can you do to show us that you are worth discussing with?
Mikey, you ought to see that none of this proves a darn thing.
What can you do to show us that you are worth discussing with?
I hold no need to prove " My Worth" to anyone. I will discuss this, but not to show I am " Worth it to you." I couldcareless how you value my conversation. This is the kind of aittitude that brings out my aittitude, something I fight to keep under control, I know how I can be.
Nevertheless, perhaps I need to open myself more to discussion, I quess I just prejudge it as meaningless in my subconsciousness, we all are already convinced of our views.
I dissagree that in the study of history and historical figures, that geographic means nothing, oh how I disagree with that. In my view, " Everything that we can discover means something." If it adds to knowledge we didnot have, it is then meaningful. I don't see why others cannot see this. If I died and someone was trying to prove that I ate Chicken, then I think it means something if it was discovered that chicken was being sold in my city. Muchless if they find chicken bones in my house. Well technology has advanced to the point that my stomach can be examined, my bill receipts can be examined, film from the chicken store can be viewed. All kinds of ways to determine.
The further we go backwards in time, the more difficult it will become. So instead of depending heavily on technology, we must depend on what was there back then. Thus the importance of Archaeology, Geographics, docuements, yes, even coins, vases, weapons, caves, graves, bones, landmarks, lakes, the ground itself, its all we have to go on. And then piece those things together, use our science as best we can to examine those things.
Now I disagree with many, because I view the bible as an historical docuement, for sure. As an example, Cyprus was annexed by Rome and in a period of 35 years had four types of Roman government, each ruled over by a " Titled" officer. Because Luke was well acquainted with these facts, it was unlikely he would use the wrong title. In Acts 13:7 he uses the correct title of " Deputy", which I know wouldnot have appeared in classical Greek. He also used correctly the expression " Chief Man" of the island of Malta where Paul was shipwrecked, Acts 28:7. This has been confirmed by two Maltese inscriptions, one in Greek, the other Latin.
Now this may seem of no importance to those whos minds are against biblical historical relevance, but it means something to me, I see its relevance. And As I go precept upon precept, line upon line, discovery upon discovery, all these seemingly unimportant things begin to add up. Then you see a bigger picture and realize they all mean something.
But if your mind dismisses any of them, then no big picture can be formulated.
Quotes from an ancient manuscript that is ahrdly self-supporting evidence, writtings from historians that are clear forgeries added much later, and rather lame argumentum ad numerium fallacies...
Nothing new here, still no support for the idea of a historical jesus.
If I died and someone was trying to prove that I ate Chicken, then I think it means something if it was discovered that chicken was being sold in my city. Muchless if they find chicken bones in my house.
But what if you died and then someone was trying to prove that you performed incredible miracles using sacrificed chickens. The fact that we could find chicken bones in your house wouldn't prove the claim anymore than than the fact that we can today find places mentioned in the Bible is proof that the Bible's claims are true.
As Arequipa pointed out, there are places mentioned in the scriptures of other religions that we know did or do exist. So, if you are going to be consistent you must also accept that this is proof that those scripture have just as much validity as yours.
Quotes from an ancient manuscript that is ahrdly self-supporting evidence, writtings from historians that are clear forgeries added much later, and rather lame argumentum ad numerium fallacies...
Nothing new here, still no support for the idea of a historical jesus.
You see this is what brings out my aittitude to just ignore discussion. What is there to discuss with this mindset from AxisMundi? What can I say to this mind? In my view nothing, but if I ignore it, I am accused of not being willing to discuss. He thinks historians writings have been proved false. What can you say to him?
For example; There was once a " Great Dearth throughout the World", which stirred the Christians in Antioch to send help by Paul to the suffering people in Jerusalem, Acts 11:27-30. Ramsay collected evidence to show that in fact this famine did in fact exist. It is recorded by Cassius and Tacitus, that there were bad harvests in Asia Minor and the Mediterranean area, and that Claudius decreed famine prices for food at that time. The bible records this, secular history records it, and Paul mentioned it again, Gal.2:1-10.
And its stuff like this all throughout the bible, but a mind like AxisMundi will never see it. So why discuss it with him?
Peace.
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.
