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.
True, I DID demonstrate your 'Christian history' is most untrustworthy (once again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
Anyone can compile a list especially if some website has already done that for you.
Nothing to do with the decades of work I have put in (and you have not). But if you want to straw man a historical analysis of Christian texts, then that shows the quality of your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
You have none of that, just a lot of silly claims from the likes of Urhman, , Freke, Gandy, and several other pretend 'scholars' who exhibit poor methodologies, specious claims, terminological fallacies, and then expand on them as if they were 'facts'.
Invention without evidence dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
Rubbish. The culture, Jerusalem, and other places area all current with the times the oral teachings were written down, well before the fall of the Temple. Anyone who says different just has no credibility at all.
I prefer what actual historians say, not an apologist who relies on fallacies and inventing facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
Now run along and snivel to some mod again.
, you are hurt about something I did not even do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
For a real historical study on the above, see Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus; not only is excellently documented, the bibliography alone is worth the money, pointing one to the more trustworthy and accurate contemporary sources of those times. I think there is even a free online copy somewhere on the net.
OK, I have it now on my hard disk.
But in return, you must:
1) learn Koine Greek.
2) read the Christian fathers.
3) Read Tacitus, Josephus and Seutonius.
4) Learn how to detect plagiarism.
5) No study of the Mongols is required.
Then you will be on a level that will allow you to make credible rebuttals instead of just inventing excuses.
...because the NT is not a history book. It is a book of nonsensical 1st - 2nd century belief in superstitious nonsense and does not accurately portray what was going on at the time.
Given the topic, it doesn't matter, just saying that Christian converted to Judaism, and that is what the New Testament shows from cover to cover. People who read it with pre conceived ideas invented by 2000 years of Christianity believe Christians. Modern Christianity has nothing to do with the original converts to Judaism.
Acknowledging Jesus would mean they have to accept Christianity as a religion, because Jesus is the central figure in that religion. Likewise, Christians acknowledging Muhammad means they have to accept Islam as a religion, because Muhammad is the central figure in that religion. To do any of these things is to acknowledge that these religions serve the same God, and that can't happen because...religion.
This is the second time that you are promoting that book...
That's because its the best single one available, and its bibliography and footnotes are even more valuable as sources for further study, particularly in its cites from the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and many many others. It makes a lot of the passages in both the OT and NT clearer when one knows what is being referred to or what names mean,
You think I'm here peddling my own book or something?
That's because its the best single one available, and its bibliography and footnotes are even more valuable as sources for further study, particularly in its cites from the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and many many others. It makes a lot of the passages in both the OT and NT clearer when one knows what is being referred to or what names mean,
You think I'm here peddling my own book or something?
For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
It's not a question of whether or not Jews believe Jesus existed. After all, they were the ones who killed him, remember? (Not the Romans.)
It's a question of whether Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah. Much like the Muslims -- Muslims actually quite clearly believe in the existence of Jesus in the Koran. It's just that neither religion recognizes Jesus as "the" Messiah.
Once again posting irrelevancies. Anyone can compile a list especially if some website has already done that for you.
That made me laugh. 'Anyone can get information off the Internet' has become a bit of a joke in the religion debate.
Information and evidence is valid, or not, whether one makes it up themselves, gets it off the internet or from a book or even college study. It is what the evidence indicates or indeed whether it is relevant that matters, not where it came from.
Arguments about what Constantine did with Christianity, or didn't do, is irrelevant to whether it is true or not, and that stands and falls on the Gospel account. Indeed, as Paul said (though probably not what he meant ) on whether the resurrection claim is true. As it demonstrably is not.
Belief in Christianity is no not so much maintaining a valid argument against criticism, but a denialist defence against unstoppable doubt and question.
Acknowledging Jesus would mean they have to accept Christianity as a religion, because Jesus is the central figure in that religion. Likewise, Christians acknowledging Muhammad means they have to accept Islam as a religion, because Muhammad is the central figure in that religion. To do any of these things is to acknowledge that these religions serve the same God, and that can't happen because...religion.
Yes, that pretty much nails it. The figure of jesus himself is neither here nor there. The Jews will accept him as some kind of 'reforming' figure. Muslims as some kind of teacher. It is the Christian claims about divinity -proving resurrection that decides whether they remain Jews or muslims or effectively. convert.
Even if one loves and admires Jesus and his teachings but does not accept the resurrection -claim (as Jefferson) then, effectively they are atheist. As was (while we are at it) Einstein, as he said himself, despite theist attempts to claim him as a Theist and even a Christian.
That's because its the best single one available, and its bibliography and footnotes are even more valuable as sources for further study, particularly in its cites from the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and many many others. It makes a lot of the passages in both the OT and NT clearer when one knows what is being referred to or what names mean,
You think I'm here peddling my own book or something?
The full title is...Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic & Social Conditions During the New Testament Period,
Fine. We love books, and videos and websites that present evidence and arguments. Over the last couple of decades, they have helped to demolish every single argument the God -believers have brought forward, until the only ones who take us on are hate -mongers and bonehead denialists.
No prizes for guessing which category you fall into.
Since you mention a Book, with all sorts of information and references, I might say something about appeal to Authority. It is not necessarily wrong to do so, as appeal to an expert in the field is going to carry some weight. I might mention a Bible -apologist poster here (a good one) who nevertheless would persist in pointing to Bible -experts and their books as support for his claims. Even though they didn't actually support anything he said, even if they had, that didn't put them beyond question.
I often use the example of a superb book analysing Matthew. He did not of course look at any of the problems or discrepancies or contradictions expect one - the two donkeys. This he simply waved away by talking about "wooden" interpretations. This this fine expert in the end let too much Biblefaith blind him to the bloody obvious which was that Matthew claimed two donkeys when the other gospels make it clear that there was only one. Thus it is obvious that Matthew was not an eyewitness and is not above inventing stuff.
I don't want to go into the door this opens into the dozens of other demonstrable inventions in Matthew, like the mobile star, the tomb -guard, sinking Simon, the Shekel -eating fish or the descending angel, but the the message is clear. Expert authority is not in itself immunity from question.
What this means is that people who debate here cannot get away with just pointing to an expert and saying that we have to accept whatever they say, even if what they say is relevant and not quotemined or misrepresented (young Einstein as a Religious apologist is a classic example of lying for Jesus).
Of course both sides do it and we not infrequently do post links, or videos or cut an paste information. I do it myself But the legitimate Call on it is always there. Anyone can say 'That's not good enough. I am no going read that book or website or watch that video and find your evidence for you - find your own argument, present and post it, and then I'll give it some attention."
It's not a question of whether or not Jews believe Jesus existed. After all, they were the ones who killed him, remember? (Not the Romans.)
It's a question of whether Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah. Much like the Muslims -- Muslims actually quite clearly believe in the existence of Jesus in the Koran. It's just that neither religion recognizes Jesus as "the" Messiah.
Ape pee?
I'm not sure whether Muslims or Jews even recognise Jesus as "A" Messiah. Anyone anointed as ruler or High
Priest was a 'Messiah' as well as someone who became a messiah, not because he was elected to be anointed , but because God said so, or so they claimed, Jesus being one of these. And he was a 'failed' messiah, of course, like many others from Judas the Galilean to Theudas, or Arthronges to Bar- Kochba. And indeed probably John the Baptist, too.
And, no. It WAS the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. Obviously the Romans. Even if the Sanhedrin had been involved it was as part of the Roman administration. Caiaphas was High Priest all the time Pilate was Procurator (1). He and his Sadducee party were effectively collaborating with the Romans in their occupation of Judea. This cannot be used to switch the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from Rome to the Jews (2) , which is clearly what the Gospel -writers were at pains to do. Matthew even adding that infamous passage (unknown to any other gospel -writer) that has the Jews eagerly accepting the blame for the crucifixion on themselves and for all their descendants.
The very visible elephant in the room is this; that fellow Matthew is the person to be in the dock as a war -criminal, directly responsible for centuries of Christian persecution of Jews and in the end, for the holocaust. And there you have it.
(1) or Prefect. The terms are interchangeable depending whether the governor was acting in his military or fiscal capacity.
(2) even if we can trust the account of the 'trial', which we can't. Jesus - not a Roman Citizen - was not Entitled to a trial.
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.
, you are hurt about something I did not even do.
) on whether the resurrection claim is true. As it demonstrably is not. 
and we not infrequently do post links, or videos or cut an paste information. I do it myself
