Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1).

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Why are you ignoring the literacy rates of the people who lived in medieval times?

Because they did not write the gospels.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Who are these historians; what are their names?

Who are Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, usw?

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Correlation does not imply causation.

You can repeat this as often as you want, but the fact still remains it often infers correlation. Ask a police person, teacher or a scientist.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Homer's may have been a text circulating, but you still can not for certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, put that text in John Mark's hands (or the several people who may have authored the book of mark). Given the literacy rate --- the probability begins to dwindle that they all had a copy of Homer. You have to put those people and/or John Mark in a school or in a library that hasn't been burnt down to the ground (in medieval times) learning how to read and write, with a teacher.

The gospels were obviously written by educated men, with a classical education, using techniques such as Chiasmus, and are clearly rewriting previous material such as the OT, a technique learnt using go to texts such as Homer. The probability is high that they knew Homer.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Anthropology may be lost on some, but not others --- not applying their world in their time and how they lived to the argument? Seriously Harry, I would think only (some) Christians would kick out civilization's evolution in an argument.

Then stop doing that. I have pointed out we have evidence for the alternative, that Mark rewrote earlier texts, we have no evidence (and can never have) for the alternate, oral tradition. And the more evidence we have for rewrites, then that means even less of the material would be based on oral tradition. And we have a large amount of solid evidence for rewriting the text, the Bible itself. And rewriting texts was what they did 2000 years ago in the western world.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Your use of sarcasm was irrelevant, calling me dishonest was the way to ignore what I wrote. Do you call that debate strategy? The text I highlighted and quoted I added 3 dots afterwards to allow readers to know to look up, as there is more to that quote. I am not the only one that does that on this forum, but will be the one called out on it during a debate? (this is not personal, it's a debate)

There was no sarcasm, your argument simply was irrelevant, and you did edit my quote to ignore the point. Why add 3 dots when you could have just posted the whole quote?

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Does not answer my question: "Constantine I was a Roman emperor in 312 and the sole Roman emperor in 324 and he established freedom of religion during his reign. If he was not the first to do so, then who was?"

Irrelevant, the Romans and Greeks had freedom of religion before Christianity even existed, therefore Constantine could not be the first. But if you need a name, Cyrus, about 800 years before Constantine.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Because they did not write the gospels.



Who are Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, usw?



You can repeat this as often as you want, but the fact still remains it often infers correlation. Ask a police person, teacher or a scientist.



The gospels were obviously written by educated men, with a classical education, using techniques such as Chiasmus, and are clearly rewriting previous material such as the OT, a technique learnt using go to texts such as Homer. The probability is high that they knew Homer.



Then stop doing that. I have pointed out we have evidence for the alternative, that Mark rewrote earlier texts, we have no evidence (and can never have) for the alternate, oral tradition. And the more evidence we have for rewrites, then that means even less of the material would be based on oral tradition. And we have a large amount of solid evidence for rewriting the text, the Bible itself. And rewriting texts was what they did 2000 years ago in the western world.



There was no sarcasm, your argument simply was irrelevant, and you did edit my quote to ignore the point. Why add 3 dots when you could have just posted the whole quote?



Irrelevant, the Romans and Greeks had freedom of religion before Christianity even existed, therefore Constantine could not be the first. But if you need a name, Cyrus, about 800 years before Constantine.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Because they did not write the gospels.

Word of the events spread throughout, approximately 60 years before the first word was ever put down on cuneiform tablet.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Who are Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, usw?

Hodge and Warfield on Inspiration

"(2): We have no detailed contemporary history of this time, the inaccurate and gossipping Suetonius and Josephus being our only sources of information.
<snip>
The province which was senatorial to-day was imperial to-morrow, — the boundaries that were fixed to-day were altered to-morrow. That these writers were thus accurate in a period and land wherein Tacitus failed to attain complete accuracy means much."

The Library of Alexandria

"The exact number of materials housed in the library is unknown, but sources report there were anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 papyrus scrolls at the height of the library’s popularity.
<snip>
Throughout its near 1,000-year history, the library was burned multiple times.
<snip>
... there is no dispute that the destruction of the Library of Alexandria significantly damaged our understanding of ancient civilizations."

Which accounts for why, we have no detailed contemporary history of this time.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

You can repeat this as often as you want, but the fact still remains it often infers correlation. Ask a police person, teacher or a scientist.



The gospels were obviously written by educated men, with a classical education, using techniques such as Chiasmus, and are clearly rewriting previous material such as the OT, a technique learnt using go to texts such as Homer. The probability is high that they knew Homer.


Then stop doing that. I have pointed out we have evidence for the alternative, that Mark rewrote earlier texts, we have no evidence (and can never have) for the alternate, oral tradition. And the more evidence we have for rewrites, then that means even less of the material would be based on oral tradition. And we have a large amount of solid evidence for rewriting the text, the Bible itself. And rewriting texts was what they did 2000 years ago in the western world.

With only a 5% literacy rates, as well as, laws preventing peasants of the era an education, but allows only those of Royalty or Wealth to receive an education, the probability rate the gospels were written by educated men are less likely by a huge margin. An inference? "Correlation does not imply causation." The evidence for the alternative, that John Mark utilized Homer, is only that that text existed so therefore it must be true. Oral traditions also existed ... so at best we have which is the most likely scenario in theory?

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

There was no sarcasm, your argument simply was irrelevant, and you did edit my quote to ignore the point. Why add 3 dots when you could have just posted the whole quote?

The method I used to highlight text was not dishonest method.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Irrelevant, the Romans and Greeks had freedom of religion before Christianity even existed, therefore Constantine could not be the first. But if you need a name, Cyrus, about 800 years before Constantine.

Which is great, for Persia, 580-529 BC. The territories conquered by Ancient Rome (centuries later) does not include Iran. You limited the scope ... Cyrus the Great can not be used to prove the point.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

With only a 5% literacy rates, as well as, laws preventing peasants of the era an education, but allows only those of Royalty or Wealth to receive an education, the probability rate the gospels were written by educated men are less likely by a huge margin.

I'm not following your logic. You say that only the royalty and wealthy got an education and could read and write; that the peasants couldn't read or write. And then you contradict yourself by saying it was less likely the gospels were written by educated men.


Well, if it's less likely the gospels were written by the educated yet it was only the educated who could write, then who wrote the gospels????

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

With only a 5% literacy rates, as well as, laws preventing peasants of the era an education, but allows only those of Royalty or Wealth to receive an education, the probability rate the gospels were written by educated men are less likely by a huge margin.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I'm not following your logic. You say that only the royalty and wealthy got an education and could read and write; that the peasants couldn't read or write. And then you contradict yourself by saying it was less likely the gospels were written by educated men.


Well, if it's less likely the gospels were written by the educated yet it was only the educated who could write, then who wrote the gospels????

I didn't say the peasants couldn't read or write. However, since it's brought up, if a peasant learned to read and write it was probably learned by peasants the way everything else was learned ... oral traditions. I say that, because only royalty and wealthy by law could receive a formal education in the middle ages.

Who wrote the gospels? --- no one knows and there is no original manuscript to help in the identity of the authors.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

...
The method I used to highlight text was not dishonest method.

...

I'm curious. Did Harry say you were dishonest, and if so, where. I must have missed it.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

...
The method I used to highlight text was not dishonest method. ...

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I'm curious. Did Harry say you were dishonest, and if so, where. I must have missed it.

Here, post 1183 and if I had used <snip> to highlight, highlighting the text probably would have been taken the same way.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Here, post 1183 and if I had used <snip> to highlight, highlighting the text probably would have been taken the same way.

Fair enough. At least he substantiated his opinion.

[arleigh]

There is overwhelming evidence of people that have shared their life after death experiences , that what scriptures said is true.
Some have no religious background what so ever, some highly educated atheist before such an event, all reveal eternal existence.
I have known the lord since age 7, when I asked him in to my life. I am 72 now and my relationship is not based on religion but this relationship , because of The Holy Spirit Jesus provides, God teaches me all that I need to know, both spiritual and day to day life even my work what ever it happens to be.
Over time men have resented Christianity and done every thing in their power to destroy faith in Jesus Christ to no avail. Men have gone to great lengths to destroy all evidence to prove their point.
Though faith goes underground, from time to time it continues to endure.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by arleigh

There is overwhelming evidence of people that have shared their life after death experiences , that what scriptures said is true.
Some have no religious background what so ever, some highly educated atheist before such an event, all reveal eternal existence.
I have known the lord since age 7, when I asked him in to my life. I am 72 now and my relationship is not based on religion but this relationship , because of The Holy Spirit Jesus provides, God teaches me all that I need to know, both spiritual and day to day life even my work what ever it happens to be.
Over time men have resented Christianity and done every thing in their power to destroy faith in Jesus Christ to no avail. Men have gone to great lengths to destroy all evidence to prove their point.
Though faith goes underground, from time to time it continues to endure.

I'm just glad you can tell us all these facts without any bias.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by arleigh

There is overwhelming evidence of people that have shared their life after death experiences , that what scriptures said is true.
Some have no religious background what so ever, some highly educated atheist before such an event, all reveal eternal existence.
I have known the lord since age 7, when I asked him in to my life. I am 72 now and my relationship is not based on religion but this relationship , because of The Holy Spirit Jesus provides, God teaches me all that I need to know, both spiritual and day to day life even my work what ever it happens to be.
Over time men have resented Christianity and done every thing in their power to destroy faith in Jesus Christ to no avail. Men have gone to great lengths to destroy all evidence to prove their point.
Though faith goes underground, from time to time it continues to endure.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I'm just glad you can tell us all these facts without any bias.

The gospels were considered heresy and the authors heretics. And, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their denial of the other gods and refusal of emperor worship. Thus, they were accused of treason to the state.

Which brings us to actual atheism of the era: How To Be An Atheist In Medieval Europe
"This lecture will take a tour of medieval unbelief, showing how and why some medieval people defied the powerful orthodoxies of their day: fired not by intellectual or philosophical doubts but by suspicion that 'God' was being used to swindle and manipulate them."