responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[total relism]

Finishing a series responding to the most common objections to Christianity.


How could a loving god send people to Hell?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143245-How-could-a-loving-god-send-people-to-Hell&highlight=

What about those who die without ever hearing about Jesus?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143263-What-about-those-who-die-without-ever-hearing-about-Jesus&highlight=

does the bible allow slavery?-why is there death and suffering if god is all loving?/the reason for the gospel-does the bible command rape? was rape allowed?-why does god not show himself today?-has the bible been translated accurately?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&highlight=


Did Jesus claim to be divine?does the bible teach he was god?did man or the councils create Jesus's divinity after he died?-conquest of Canaan, did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children?did god order the death of innocent life?. What was the reason for judgment on the Canaanites?- Did god harden Pharaoh heart? only to punish him for it?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144793-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-4&highlight=


Sins of the fathers punish the children? are children or later generations punished for the sins of the fathers?-OT death penalty laws-What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history-God sent plagues,even ones that killed babies such as the ten plagues of Egypt.How could a loving god do that.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145200-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-5&highlight=





15] Did god create evil? Isiah 45.7


some point to this passage to claim god created evil.



King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”


However the proper translation should be calamity, not evil. There are 7 ways to translate the word for evil, i believe the king james is only that translates this way.

calamity, mistranslated,with flow of chapter,calamity 7 ways to translate original word.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=NIV



The word#ra'#is used throughout the Old Testament with several meanings. It is used many times to mean something morally evil or hurtful (Job 35:12, 1 Sam 30:22, etc.) but it is also used to mean an unpleasant experience (Gen 47:9 and Prov. 15:10). It is used to describe fierce beasts (Lev. 26:6), and even spoiled or inferior fruit (Jer 24:3). Certainly, the figs that Jeremiah was looking at were not evil in the sense of morally reprobate!
In Isaiah 45, the word evil is used in a contrast to the peace and well-being discussed before it. I quote John Haley:
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi025.asp



#"calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc.#
Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of "light" and "darkness," "well being" and "calamity."# The word "well-being" in the Hebrew is the word for 'peace,' "Shalome."# So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The "evil" that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity.
http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil


The context of Isaiah 45: 7makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context ofIsaiah 45:7is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,”Isaiah 45:7is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html





"Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4)

"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)

for more read here
#4 https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&highlight=




16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?


There are many claims from many parts of the bible saying it copied or stole or took its info from other religions and changed it to create their own. Generally the only people who claim these anymore are Muslims [ I suggest watching debates with william lane craig and Muslims on topic] and atheist internet websites and documentaries. 90% of the time all you have to do is go to the original read it,you will see there is no connection as claimed. Also check the time, often the supposed similar figure or story, really comes after the bible account,many times as a response or copied from the bible. Than there are just the embarrassing claims of some like many figures were born on december 25th and jesus copied it as birth date. Just let them know jesus was not born december 25 and did not even use our calendar but a jewish calender with no dec, he was born around our sep time. Alot of this will be references with originals for any interested.





Creation account


facts to ignore


simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme


now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV


The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.


-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66


- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator


-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.


Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.


-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.



assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.




Great article answering those that say [B]genesis was influenced by other local creation accounts.

The influence of the ancient near east on the book of genesis
bible and spade 23.4 [2010] 95-99


The contrast between Ancient Near Eastern myths and Scripture leaves us with no doubts.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n2/genesis-myth-buster


is Genesis 1 Just Reworked Babylonian Myth?
http://creation.com/is-genesis-1-just-reworked-babylonian-myth


creation account from Babylonian myth?
Joc 27 2013 p 99-104 is genesis just reworked Babylonian myth?
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-272
Compares text in whole in context genesis creation has no comparison at all when read in fullyshows the many and vast differences between the two text.




Solomon proverbs stolen from Egyptian proverbs?.
JOC 2012 p 50-56

Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths?Refuting the copycat thesis
http://creation.com/was-christianity-plagiarized-from-pagan-myths
Was the story of Jesus stolen from pagan savior figures?
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/pagint.html

The Virginal Conception of Christ Alleged pagan derivation.
http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ

Misconceptions in popular media[edit source#|#editbeta]
The documentary movie#Religulous#(2008), the internet movie#Zeitgeist#(2007) and the book#The Christ Conspiracy#claim that Horus was born of a virgin. Egyptian texts demonstrate that Horus’ mother was the goddess#Isis, and not a human virgin. Horus was conceived when Isis resurrected the dismembered god#Osiris#and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity, and certainly#parthenogenesis. However, Isis' intercourse with Osiris did not involve the use of Osiris' lost phallus, but, rather, the golden phallus Isis had fashioned. This standing, it may be said that Horus was divinely conceived of a female whom had not had intercourse with a male's organic phallus. So being, the term 'virgin' is debatable in reference to Isis, but Horus' birth by divine intervention (the golden phallus) through a female whom had not had intercourse with a male's organic phallus is not as debatable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus


robert van voorst on bible/pagan comparisons
“contemporary NT scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes or often ignore them completely”.

Any debate with scholars will fast show comparisons arose after jesus as response, or have nothing to offer from original sources.

virgin birth
ABR 26.2 2013 p45

virgin birth pagan vs christian
roman god mithras- sprang fully grown equipped with dagger and tourch from a rock
egytian god horus- clear conseption from sexual union of parents isis and osiris

crucifixion- no mention of a cross or Crucifixion.
p 45-46
Krishna- mortally wounded by hunter
osiris – drowned in nile river
adonis- gored by wild boar
attis- died under a tree after emasculating himself.
Mithras- never dies.

Resurrection
Mithru- never actually died
adonis- remains dead
osiris -never reapers in the land of the living “remains forever connected with the underworld as the lord of the dead”


historian of religion Jonathan z smith on dying and rising gods

“misnomer” “all the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising dutie can be subsumed under two large classes of diapering deities or dying deities. In the first case the deity returns but have not died, the second the gods die but do not return,there is no unambiguous instance in the history or religions of dying and rising deity.
2005 dying and rising gods encyclopedia of religion 2nd edition

baptism
mithras cult- no evidence existed before 2nd century AD, not like baptism bull/blood walk through etc.


Jesus fully in line and taken from old testament of the bible. Fully understood within historic Jewish understanding.


ABR
Flood from Gilgamesh?
Gilgamesh was independent written from genesis account,a account found from area that predates Babylonian legend that agree s and confirms genesis including monotheism.


Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?

http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
8) Alleged pagan derivation

A common objection to the Virginal Conception is that there are supposed parallels in pagan mythology, e.g. the Medusa-slayer Perseus, born of the woman Danaë and sired by Zeus, the chief of the Greek pantheon. Zeus also fathered Herakles from Alkmene and Dionysus from Semele.39 Opponents of Christianity from Trypho and Celsus,44 who was refuted by Origen’s Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), till the present, have used this objection, but it has many flaws:
This objection commits the genetic fallacy, the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail; chemists don’t need to worry about correct snake behaviour to analyse benzene! Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.
Who derived from whom? Many of the legends like Mithra come after Christianity and were a reaction to it.
The so-called parallels are not parallels at all! Perseus was not really virginally conceived at all, but was the result of sexual intercourse between the lecherous god Zeus and Danaë. Zeus had previously turned himself into a shower of gold to reach the imprisoned damsel. Zeus also fathered Herakles from Alkmene and Dionysus from Semele. Similarly for attempt to assert that the Resurrection of Christ was plagiarised—the death-rebirth-death cycles in paganism have nothing to do with the once and for all resurrection of Jesus, and the pagan gods didn’t die for our sins. And the Osiris legends have him remaining buried in the ground, while it’s a historical fact that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Other alleged parallels are just as worthless, so it is pointless for sceptical scholars to multiply examples—zero times a hundred is still zero.
Christ was a historical figure written about by people who knew him—quite different from the mythological parallels.
The earliest Christians were Jews who abhorred paganism (see Acts 14), so would be the last people to derive Christianity from paganism.
The existence of counterfeits does not disprove the real thing. No-one claims that real money can’t exist because there is counterfeit money. In fact, it is only valuable things that are counterfeited— who would want to counterfeit something worthless—so the existence of counterfeits is indirect evidence of the real thing. Of course, Satan wants to counterfeit the Word of God. We should know the real thing (God’s Word, and money too although far less important) so well that we can readily discern counterfeits.
Many of these points are covered in more detail in the article ‘Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?’ by the scholar Dr Ronald Nash.





17] Was Jesus a real human that lived in time-space?.


no historian would claim that the most influancial person to ever live [jesus] never really lived. He is written about from many sources,christian,roman,Jewish etc enemies and those that loved him, there is more info on jesus than any ancient figure to live. Those that claim otherwise do not do so as historians,but because there worldview demands he be made up. As Liberal atheist scholar Bart D. Ehrman says, if you reject jesus what makes you think Abraham Lincoln was a real person?.




Jesus of the bible/historical.
The bible provides the earliest writings of who Jesus was, based on multiple people who were around and closest to him and his life.First why is the bible [even liberal scholars date to within the life time of the apostles and authors] not count as accurate description of his life and who he was?. What evidence [not based on your worldview or biases] can you offer to reject its writings as recording what jesus did and said?. Why would the apostles all be willing to be killed/tortured/beheaded/crusifed upside down etc for someone that they invented? people will die for what they think is true, but not for what they know not to be and a lie. With not one denying jesus as lord while facing death, none said wait guys we took this to far?.

But if you want to deny historical writings about a person from multiple sources, some friend some enemy some unbiased. That what makes you think Julius Cesar was real? or Abraham linclon as bart erman asks?. Why is the most written about most influential to all history person [jesus] not real? you have#unjustified radical unsupported#beliefs#to reject him as a historical person.


some of the references to Jesus outside the bible
For example, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37) made reference to "Jesus, the so-called Christ."

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52) wrote of "Christus," who was "put to death by Pontius Pilate."

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112) spoke of the "troublesome sect of Christians."

Suetonius (A.D. 120) spoke of disturbances over "Chrestus" (Christ).

All in all, the "external evidence" for the reliability of the Bible is overwhelming.

#Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings.#Encyclopædia Britannica#sums up the force of the data:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th#centuries.”

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant,#The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557)

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus,#Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
“Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death”
Luke Timothy Johnson,#The Real Jesus#(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.


At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a supernaturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity,"#Truth#1 (1985): 86.

liberal atheist scholar (Bart Ehrman admits that no serious scholar believes the person Jesus was not a real person.
Prof. Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDS0Br68OfM


resurrection of jesus
One major difficulty for non-Christian scholars has been to explain what happened to Christ’s body, as a plausible alternative to the Resurrection. Christ’s enemies would not want to steal it, since that would promote the resurrection stories they wanted to quash—and they would have quashed them by simply producing the body. The disciples had no motive to confront a heavily armed Roman cohort and steal the body to promote Resurrection stories. The disciples were tortured and killed, and no-one would die for what he knows is a lie. However, one of the earliest arguments against the Resurrection was the story the Roman soldiers were bribed to say: “His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13). This is absurd: how could they know what happened if they were asleep? Also, any Roman soldier who slept on duty was executed
Paul’s statement of the gospel in#1 Cor. 15#cites an ancient tradition dating back to only a few years after the event. Mark’s account of the empty tomb reflects the Aramaic, pointing to a very early source. Dr William Lane Craig gives much evidence for the reliability of the burial and empty tomb accounts
Craig, W.,#Apologetics: An Introduction, Moody, Chicago, USA, Ch. 5.2, 1984, and lists at least 30 prominent scholars who agree

History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock#
Professor of Classics#
Auckland University

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
“Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death”
Luke Timothy Johnson,#The Real Jesus#(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.


#"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”#
atheist scholar #Bart Ehrman

#Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann declares that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”#

John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously liberal Jesus Seminar, says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” According to Crossan, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”#


who was the real jesus?/worldview.
Albert Schweitzer said scholars failed to reach the historical jesus because they read their own ideas into the sources.
Bible and spade p 33 26.2 2013

“unmistakable resemblance between their portrayal of the religion of jesus and their own personal religious stance” and “they found just about what they were looking for”
Carl braaten Liberal professor at Lutheran school of theology in Chicago history and hermeneutics 1966


“It becomes alarmingly and terrifying evident how inevitably each author brought the spirit of his own age into the presentation of the figure of jesus”
leading NT critical scholar Gunter Bornkamm U of Heidelberg Jesus of Nazareth 1960.



William Lane Craig vs. Reza Aslan on the Historical Jesus
Claims
born in Bethlehem
only child-brothers,yes shows bible is accurate in nt.
12 disciples ,but many more. Yes true,no error in nt. There was a group called “the 12”.
trial before pilot-watch video
Jesus buried in tomb-watch video
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/10/william-lane-craig-vs-reza-aslan-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+answeringmuslims%2FynNl+%28Answering+Muslims%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail






18] woman in bible


CCC 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.


Given this history, let's see how God approaches women in the Bible. The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman (John 20:15-18). The first European convert was a woman (Acts 16:14). The only followers of Jesus to stand with Him in his crucifixion were women. There were woman in the upper room and anointed with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1-4). Jesus was born to an earthly mother, but not an earthly father(Matt. 1:18,etc.). Only a woman understood Christ's upcoming death (Mark 14:8). These actions show that women played a part as crucial to Christ's ministry as the men

In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift,pain in childbirth was punishment#just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opposite him" a mirror image.


christian woman pastors from early second century, woman in church had bigger and more roles in church in first century than second, than died off as a response to Gnostic.
in#The Story of Christianity: Volume 1, Justo L. González


men the head of woman/above in charge
mark 10 42-44

read here for pauls letters
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

[Montmorency]

The circle is complete - it's so powerful!

No… impossible! Reason… failing… logic… melting away! Delusions... too powerful to resist! Must… convert!

IIIINNNRRRIIIIIIIIII

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/i2149-01-jesus-kazanskaya-folding-fiberboard-icon-macro2_enl.jpg

[total relism]

This has nothing to do with converting,that is a 100% heart issue. This has to do with truth,what is true what is not. As I am sure you are aware, allot of false info is spread about the bible, and this is about discussion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I missed you Total Relism.

EDIT: What does the Bible say about the chosen status of USAnians?

[total relism]

thanks glad to be back, what the hell is USAnians?

[Sigurd]

Few comments:

Did God create evil?

No problem with your correction of Isaiah.
But it does not answer the question. So... I am not sure what you believe on this subject as you have hinted to being a baptist (going to a baptist church). Do you believe in the persona known as Lucifer? Is this an entity in the universe? What role does he/it have in God's plan? Philosophical speaking, good would be nothing without evil. Was Christ an answer to evil, to correct that which was broken, or would a creation without evil be meaningless and void?


Was Jesus a real human that lived in time-space?

I don't know if you noticed the posts about this in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145844-Jesus-was-invented&p=2053554987&viewfull=1#post2053554987). Both Tacitus and Josephus seems constructed to support Christ and Christians as historic.

Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries. None of the early church fathers mention these records in their works. Josephus was probably forged in the 15th century to include the well known Testimonium Flavianum. If you read all of Josephus, you'll notice that he is more concerned with a character named James (English translation), who seemed to be running a radical sect, not unlike Christians. Chrestos - Christos, Jospehus calls Agrippa I (the appointed king of the Jews) Chrestus.
...

[Sarmatian]

responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

in Darth Vader voice

[total relism]

Few comments:

Did God create evil?

No problem with your correction of Isaiah.
But it does not answer the question. So... I am not sure what you believe on this subject as you have hinted to being a baptist (going to a baptist church). Do you believe in the persona known as Lucifer? Is this an entity in the universe? What role does he/it have in God's plan? Philosophical speaking, good would be nothing without evil. Was Christ an answer to evil, to correct that which was broken, or would a creation without evil be meaningless and void?


thanks for post

My response on op was to the passage sited to say god did create evil in Isaiah, so we both agree on the correction of the kjv. How I respond to the absolute origin of evil is posted on the op under


for more read here
#4 https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...ble&highlight=

that was previous thread, why is there death suffering [and evil] etc.


as for your other questions,i try very hard to to join or associate [or become a member] any church or denomination, i try best to follow bible,i have attended and do/will attend all sorts of denominations. I do believe in the person-hood of Lucifer. He has his role/roles,most important i would say is the accuser on judgment day. For example the title devil means Devil is a title, he is accuser, he accuses humans of there sin to god, a prosecuting lawyer. Jesus is in a way a direct answer to the problem of death suffering and sin. I disagree there is no good without evil,god is good and was good before there ever was evil.






Was Jesus a real human that lived in time-space?

I don't know if you noticed the posts about this in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145844-Jesus-was-invented&p=2053554987&viewfull=1#post2053554987). Both Tacitus and Josephus seems constructed to support Christ and Christians as historic.

Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries. None of the early church fathers mention these records in their works. Josephus was probably forged in the 15th century to include the well known Testimonium Flavianum. If you read all of Josephus, you'll notice that he is more concerned with a character named James (English translation), who seemed to be running a radical sect, not unlike Christians. Chrestos - Christos, Jospehus calls Agrippa I (the appointed king of the Jews) Chrestus.
...


"Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries"

this is amazing claim that would have to reject all history based on whatever you base this statement on. If you chose to please chose a few references i posted and give your reasons why to reject each.

I would have to highly question were your getting your info but i am intrigued. No question many see parts of Josephus as forged later,but as i am aware none the parts that refer to jesus as human actual person. Just the messiah part etc. All evidences i see are not based on evidence, but maybe what if could have been etc going outside the historical documents, so what evidence you you provide to support what you have said.


that you claim Jospehus was written in 15th century [when its accepted to be written before 100ad] makes me truly wonder how you come to that.

[Sigurd]

thanks for post

Always happy to be involved in interesting discussion.



I do believe in the person-hood of Lucifer. He has his role/roles,most important i would say is the accuser on judgment day. For example the title devil means Devil is a title, he is accuser, he accuses humans of there sin to god, a prosecuting lawyer.

Interesting...I'll have to investigate more around this belief before responding. I can't say that this is familiar to me.



I disagree there is no good without evil,god is good and was good before there ever was evil.

I think you misunderstand. Philosophically, good is the opposite of evil, as sorrow and pain is to joy, warm vs cold etc. These conceptual understandings needs its adversary to have meaning. So a good God will have no meaning without what is considered bad, evil.
What would make good good without something else to measure it against? Good on its own would have no meaning.



"Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries"

this is amazing claim that would have to reject all history based on whatever you base this statement on.
that you claim Jospehus was written in 15th century [when its accepted to be written before 100ad] makes me truly wonder how you come to that.
I am not considering the Bible a historic record... so that is not included in my comment above. Historic reference made by non-associates of the Christians. We are arguing Jesus of Nazareth here... is he mentioned? Christ is a title "the anointed one" and might not refer to Jesus at all... We are therfore looking for the reference associating a man called Jesus from Nazareth or a Nazarene (different but still...) called the anointed one (Kingship).
Josephus was not written in the 15th century,, but his testimony of Christ was (named Testimonium Flavianum), suggesting blatant forgery by those who transcribed this book. (oops.. remembered it wrong.. It was another reference which is believed forged in the 15th century, not Josephus).

None of the 4th century church fathers mentions or quotes any of the listed supposed references of Christ (except TF).. Why? maybe they didn't exist when they made their apologetic works.

Also worthy of note... I did not say that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character... just to make sure you are not jumping to conclusions regarding my intent.

I have a problem with the Josephus passage as I have read the entire work of him, it just doesn't fit with the rest that Josephus wrote. He was not a Christian and therefore would not attest to the divinity of Christ as the Testimonium Flavianum does.

[total relism]

I think you misunderstand. Philosophically, good is the opposite of evil, as sorrow and pain is to joy, warm vs cold etc. These conceptual understandings needs its adversary to have meaning. So a good God will have no meaning without what is considered bad, evil.
What would make good good without something else to measure it against? Good on its own would have no meaning.



I disagree, god by nature [according to bible] is good, and was around and good before evil ever was. But from a human point of view, would we know what is good without evil? no idea. Can murder be wrong without anyone ever murdering? I think it can.





I am not considering the Bible a historic record... so that is not included in my comment above. Historic reference made by non-associates of the Christians. We are arguing Jesus of Nazareth here... is he mentioned? Christ is a title "the anointed one" and might not refer to Jesus at all... We are therfore looking for the reference associating a man called Jesus from Nazareth or a Nazarene (different but still...) called the anointed one (Kingship).
Josephus was not written in the 15th century,, but his testimony of Christ was (named Testimonium Flavianum), suggesting blatant forgery by those who transcribed this book.
None of the 4th century church fathers mentions or quotes any of the listed supposed references of Christ.. Why? maybe they didn't exist when they made their apologetic works.

Also worthy of note... I did not say that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character... just to make sure you are not jumping to conclusions regarding my intent.

I have a problem with the Josephus passage as I have read the entire work of him, it just doesn't fit with the rest that Josephus wrote. He was not a Christian and therefore would not attest to the divinity of Christ as the Testimonium Flavianum does.



Just wondering, what causes you to reject all the historical documents that make up the nt. They are the earliest closest record of jesus. Your rejection of them has to do with your religious,bias,worldview, not based on historical data. My op here is solely on was jesus a actual human that lived in time-space. But as my op said,there are multiple references outside the bible, to jesus of Nazareth.


Josephus I am not hear to argue if his writings in full [jesus messiah etc] are genuine,just the historical reference to jesus as person and crucified. I think your mistaking what is objected to as being original from him. I have read alot of back and fourth on this, and this seems to be the overall opinion

[from left wing wiki] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation


Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

as well as

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic


why reject the jesus section?.


as for fathers not using as reference read here

There are No References by Early Church Fathers to the TF Until Eusebius

One of the most common objections to the partial authenticity theory is that if the reconstructed TF was authentic, some Christian writer prior to Eusebius would have mentioned it. Although this argument is not without appeal, upon closer examination it fails to persuade. There simply is no reason to believe that the early Christians would have found the TF much use to their writings. Moreover, Roger Pearse has helpfully compiled all of the references to Josephus by the early Church fathers (Pearse, Josephus and Anti-Nicene Fathers, 2001). There are surprisingly few -- only around a dozen prior to Eusebius -- , showing that Josephus was not well known or often used by the early Church fathers.

Meier offers this further argument:

One possible explanation of this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief ‑‑ not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians.

(Meier, op. cit., page 79).

Earl Doherty has responded:

Meier's argument is that the Christian Fathers would have recognized that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, or believe that he had risen from the dead. The Testimonium witnessed to Josephus' unbelief and was therefore avoided. But should the apologists have found this disconcerting in a non‑Christian? They dealt with unbelief every day, faced it head on, tried to counter and even win over the opponent. Justin's major work, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, did just that. Origen, in his own confrontation with Celsus, did not shy away from criticizing Josephus for attributing the fall of Jerusalem to God's punishment on the Jews for the death of James, rather than for the death of Jesus (see below). In fact, Origen refers to the very point which Meier suggests Christian commentators shied away from, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 18.3.3 by all the apologists prior to Eusebius can be explained in this way.

(Doherty, op. cit., page 209-10).

It appears that Doherty misses the central point. Meier does not pretend that Josephus unbelief was frightening or "disconcerting." Rather, Josephus' unbelief meant that the TF would have been of little use for their arguments. The only question is whether they would have turned to the TF -- unredacted -- to promote their apologies. Because Josephus denied Jesus was the Messiah, the apologetic value for that time was not very great (if it existed at all).

Doherty also argues that Christians at least would have turned to the TF to prove that Jesus did miracles. But this too is unpersuasive. Opponents of Christianity apparently accepted that Jesus performed wondrous feats, but tended to write them off as magic. This is exactly what Trypho the Jew did. He argued that Jesus' miracles were a result of magic learned while he was in Egypt. Given this situation, Josephus' neutral reference about Jesus' wonderful deeds would avail them little. Indeed, as discussed above, because "parodoxa" can carry with it a negative connotation -- "controversial deeds" -- use of the original TF may very well have undercut the Christian's argument.

Jeffery Lowder's comment is on point:

Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth century.

(Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000)


as for Josephus never would affirm jesus as messiah

The controversy surrounding its authenticity mainly revolves around the notion that Josephus, a Jew, would never have referred to Jesus in a way that coincides with all the essential components of the biblical accounts. For that reason, it has become the most hotly disputed passage in all of ancient literature. Those who hold to the notion that the testimonium is thoroughly authentic, assert there is no textual evidence to warrant the idea the passage has been interpolated as ALL extant copies of this section contain this passage.



could you show me a place Josephus is quoted in the section of jesus from the fathers that left out jesus?.




Just to be clear, i in no way care or affirm that Josephus entire passages on Jesus are authentic.

[Lemur]

If there's a God, how did he allow the horse herpes outbreak, hmmm?

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

https://i.imgur.com/IyMdhBf.jpg

[total relism]

cant tell if your serious,i assume not but just in case. Your video link did not work,origin of death suffering is on op,look to my third link.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&highlight=

[Sigurd]

I disagree, god by nature [according to bible] is good, and was around and good before evil ever was. But from a human point of view, would we know what is good without evil? no idea. Can murder be wrong without anyone ever murdering? I think it can.

According to the Bible... Well I need to be shown that specific reference. Especially the part where God existed as good before evil ever was.
Genesis mentions light being good in genesis 1... as contrasted to darkness (being evil?) That is the very first this conceptual idea is mentioned in the bible. The next is about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The first time evil is mentioned and apparently a conceptual opposite of good.
And murdering would in this context be an action under the conceptual umbrella of evil. Can murder be good?
Good and evil as concepts need each other to make sense. God alone in the void and good would have no meaning unless contrasted to something else that was not good. As a concept it is void in itself alone.



Just wondering, what causes you to reject all the historical documents that make up the nt. They are the earliest closest record of jesus. Your rejection of them has to do with your religious,bias,worldview, not based on historical data. My op here is solely on was Jesus a actual human that lived in time-space. But as my op said,there are multiple references outside the bible, to jesus of Nazareth.

Clear indication that you didn't read my post. nt is part of the bible right? And I think I am more towards the center and objectivity when it comes to bias wouldn't you think? (Dark and sooted kettle calling a sparkling shiny new copper pot for black).
No... your references except Josephus does not mention Jesus. They do however mention Chrestos which is "the good" Tacitus has been shown is a forgery changing chrestianos to Christianos (http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf). Even if we should agree to the word Christ, it is but a title and not necessarily referencing Jesus from Nazareth, but some leader amongst the Jews. Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD, wouldn't that be contrary to the NT? Jesus leaving the disciples (33 AD) never to return until the second coming? According to the NT, Jesus never went to the Gentiles.
You could go and gather other pre 4th century historic references about Jesus, but will most likely find that they are not talking about the Jesus of Nazaret as portrayed in the NT. Too many contradictions with the gospels.


Josephus...

(I guess you didn't see my edited post 30 min prior to your latest post)
I am not going to dissect your Josephus section. I will however say this; It has been shown that the particular section (TF) about Jesus being the Christ has been tampered with, nobody denies this.
The fact that it has been tampered with means it has been invalidated. It is no longer trustworthy. Also... Josephus having religious doubts, takes us through the different sects of his early days (about 50 AD). He does not mention Christianity. He mentions Pharisees, Sadducee, Essene and a forth sect lead by a man named Judas. If he later proclaims Jesus as Christ, wouldn't he have included Christians in his musings as Antiquity of the Jews was written about 70AD?

[Kadagar_AV]

Sigurd :stare:

TR, When I think of you, I can't help but think of the Benny Hill theme song. Your arguments seem to kind of rhythm with it.

Why is this your final post on the issue though? I kind of like following your posts, Benny Hill theme on loudest volume, while I eat my morning cereals.

[total relism]

Sigurd :stare:

TR, When I think of you, I can't help but think of the Benny Hill theme song. Your arguments seem to kind of rhythm with it.

Why is this your final post on the issue though? I kind of like following your posts, Benny Hill theme on loudest volume, while I eat my morning cereals.

well i dont know of benny hill, but he must be a awesome guy. This is not my final post on Christianity, just on the common objection to bible,in fact my next post i think you will enjoy most.


According to the Bible... Well I need to be shown that specific reference. Especially the part where God existed as good before evil ever was.
Genesis mentions light being good in genesis 1... as contrasted to darkness (being evil?) That is the very first this conceptual idea is mentioned in the bible. The next is about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The first time evil is mentioned and apparently a conceptual opposite of good.
And murdering would in this context be an action under the conceptual umbrella of evil. Can murder be good?
Good and evil as concepts need each other to make sense. God alone in the void and good would have no meaning unless contrasted to something else that was not good. As a concept it is void in itself alone.


Clear indication that you didn't read my post. nt is part of the bible right? And I think I am more towards the center and objectivity when it comes to bias wouldn't you think? (Dark and sooted kettle calling a sparkling shiny new copper pot for black).
No... your references except Josephus does not mention Jesus. They do however mention Chrestos which is "the good" Tacitus has been shown is a forgery changing chrestianos to Christianos (http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf). Even if we should agree to the word Christ, it is but a title and not necessarily referencing Jesus from Nazareth, but some leader amongst the Jews. Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD, wouldn't that be contrary to the NT? Jesus leaving the disciples (33 AD) never to return until the second coming? According to the NT, Jesus never went to the Gentiles.
You could go and gather other pre 4th century historic references about Jesus, but will most likely find that they are not talking about the Jesus of Nazaret as portrayed in the NT. Too many contradictions with the gospels.

(I guess you didn't see my edited post 30 min prior to your latest post)
I am not going to dissect your Josephus section. I will however say this; It has been shown that the particular section (TF) about Jesus being the Christ has been tampered with, nobody denies this.
The fact that it has been tampered with means it has been invalidated. It is no longer trustworthy. Also... Josephus having religious doubts, takes us through the different sects of his early days (about 50 AD). He does not mention Christianity. He mentions Pharisees, Sadducee, Essene and a forth sect lead by a man named Judas. If he later proclaims Jesus as Christ, wouldn't he have included Christians in his musings as Antiquity of the Jews was written about 70AD?




Not sure were you get info on bible on, its online for free multiple translation as well.
http://www.biblegateway.com/

the bible says god is good and no evil is with him,it also says he is eternal before the world was,everything besides him was created. So he was good before any evil was done . but as i said before, god by nature is good, he is the law giver and his actions is in line with his nature of being good,so good is good,love,etc without bad being there, evil comes later, that does not make gods nature before evil not good. This is clear theme in genesis and bible,the fall of man,fall of perfection,origin of evil etc.




you did not answer,i said on what basis do you reject the nt as not being the earliest closest most relabel source for the person of jesus. Only your bias religious worldview rejects historical documents because of what they contain.



I think you need to reread my op, I gave many references outside the bible to jesus, you already admitted Josephus referenced him. Even your own link on tactitus said


"Chrestiani, “Chrestians”, which might be what the [B]Romans called the Christians, according to some scholars."



from left wing wiki

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's 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] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea




from tacitus

, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.


this event clearly speaks of jesus and Christians, you cant hide from it in anyway about questioning one letter in a word.



please provide for me this
"Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD"




Josephus
I agree as this is very debated in depth subject,anyone can go find arguments for and against each position. You claim that no one denies it has been tampered with, that is false and a lie. Not all agree that anything has been tapered with,in fact there is no document evidence it ever was. it is a claim. As i statted very few believe that the parts i referred to as referring to jesus as historical person,are false or tampered with,just certain small sections. Besides he refers to jesus in other places that noone considers tampered with. The fact is he does refer to christian,you just deny it. As a atheist scholar said, why accept Abraham Lincoln?.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.

He [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews, constantly causing disturbances, with Chrestos as the instigator.

With respect, Sigurd, I would suggest strongly that the Tacitus passage, no matter whether the individual letters, mentioned in the article you linked to, have been changed, would still indicate that there were Christians in Rome in AD 60. Certainly 'Chrestos' could be a title, but given the context and the details (killed by Pilate etc.) which do not seem to have been interpolated, it seems reasonable to accept the Tacitean account.

TR. Re: the Josephus passage, you are correct that there is no documentary evidence that it was interpolated. This is because all the manuscripts which we have are later copies, made by church historians. It seems likely that this was an early insertion, long before the first surviving manuscripts. There are numerous details in the Testimonium Flavianum that render it highly unlikely that it represents Josephus' view, though the original notice may well have mentioned Christ.

Certainly I would not deny that Jesus probably existed and preached in a manner similar to how he is portrayed in the NT. That said, though you keep saying that denying Christ's existence is akin to denying Abraham Lincoln, we have much more contemporary evidence for the latter's existence.

[HoreTore]

I was promised a creationism thread.

I am disappoint.

[Beskar]

There is a theory that Jesus in Greek in 'Zeus'.

There are other theory's as the figure being a Freedom Fighter, pointing to how Nazareth didn't appear in records until the 3rd Century AD. The Nazarene were a Jewish resistance movement and theory points to how a century was used to detain Christ in the gardens and how all of his followers were armed and willing to defend him through combat. This points to how he was a high profile target, such as a resistance leader/bandit leader, and how armed companions was not the custom for peaceful gatherings.

Lots of debates.

[Sigurd]

Not sure were you get info on bible on, its online for free multiple translation as well.
http://www.biblegateway.com/

the bible says god is good and no evil is with him,it also says he is eternal before the world was,everything besides him was created. So he was good before any evil was done . but as i said before, god by nature is good, he is the law giver and his actions is in line with his nature of being good,so good is good,love,etc without bad being there, evil comes later, that does not make gods nature before evil not good. This is clear theme in genesis and bible,the fall of man,fall of perfection,origin of evil etc.

Right... so God being the originator of all (he is the first mover, the necessary being) the architect behind temporal and spiritual reality, did not create evil... He did not create Lucifer who was a liar from the beginning. The omniscience of God couldn't predict evil? I'm trying to make sense of it all... If God did not create evil, then it too must have existed from eternity. If not it must have been created - and God is the creator of everything. So which is it? Am I arguing a false dichotomy here?



you did not answer,i said on what basis do you reject the nt as not being the earliest closest most relabel source for the person of jesus. Only your bias religious worldview rejects historical documents because of what they contain.
I think you need to reread my op, I gave many references outside the bible to jesus, you already admitted Josephus referenced him. Even your own link on tactitus said

I did... in the post before the one you asked. I already said, I am not considering the Bible as historic evidence for Jesus for obvious reasons. Your OP was about evidence outside the Bible, hence NT is not relevant in this question.



"Chrestiani, “Chrestians”, which might be what the [B]Romans called the Christians, according to some scholars."

Bollox... according to evangelist scholars perhaps.
I am not disputing that Christians existed at some point, which is not what we are discussing here. Many "Christs" has existed in history and I mentioned one already: Agrippa I, the appointed King of the Jews around Josephus was called Chrestus by Josephus. See where I am going with this? Hence it was these Chrestians that the Romans were talking about. Pilate is most probably an interpolation in Josephus, besides, Pilate probably put down many Jewish rebellion leaders. I am disputing any reference that Christ was in Rome... give me any backup on this from either the Bible or early bible apologists.



please provide for me this
"Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD"

Simple logic my friend. Suetonius wrote this in ca. 110 AD
Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.


So this Chresto was causing the Jews to riot and they were thus expelled from Rome.
This is the alledged reference... to Jesus from Nazareth. The problem with this is that Claudius ruled in Rome 41 - 54 AD, long after the ascension of Christ.
So... Chrestus (The good) instigated the Jews, not the Christians btw to riot. Josephus makes a point of recording that Herod Agrippa I was appointed by *drumroll* Claudius to be the King of Judea... and was called *another drumrolll* Chrestus by Josephus. I think... it is a WIDE stretch to tie Jesus or Christians to this obscure passage from Suetonius. It is a clear case of looking for evidence to support a pre conceived conclusion.
"Oh.. look someone mentioned Christians.. this is clearly evidence that Jesus is the Christ"...

The mere fact that anyone has tampered with historic records should give us a clear and big warning that someone has sunken to mere lies to support their cause. That in itself is seriously incriminating, and is why Christian scholars are desperate to belittle them. It calls for skepticism to the entirety of records from these people.



Josephus
I agree as this is very debated in depth subject,anyone can go find arguments for and against each position. You claim that no one denies it has been tampered with, that is false and a lie. Not all agree that anything has been tapered with
Perhaps those scholars are evangelists? Again... the established scholarship aren't too threatened by those and are generally the joke of the class.

[total relism]

TR. Re: the Josephus passage, you are correct that there is no documentary evidence that it was interpolated. This is because all the manuscripts which we have are later copies, made by church historians. It seems likely that this was an early insertion, long before the first surviving manuscripts. There are numerous details in the Testimonium Flavianum that render it highly unlikely that it represents Josephus' view, though the original notice may well have mentioned Christ.

Certainly I would not deny that Jesus probably existed and preached in a manner similar to how he is portrayed in the NT. That said, though you keep saying that denying Christ's existence is akin to denying Abraham Lincoln, we have much more contemporary evidence for the latter's existence.


Yeah i never said the whole passage had to be correct, he refers to christian 3 times or Christ. The section that is in question i dont care if it is original or not,and has nothing to do with op. It was however quoted in 4th century in full. What do you mean by there is more evidence for Abraham Lincoln? and what of Julius ceaser?.




I was promised a creationism thread.

I am disappoint.


dont be troubled it on the way.


There is a theory that Jesus in Greek in 'Zeus'.

There are other theory's as the figure being a Freedom Fighter, pointing to how Nazareth didn't appear in records until the 3rd Century AD. The Nazarene were a Jewish resistance movement and theory points to how a century was used to detain Christ in the gardens and how all of his followers were armed and willing to defend him through combat. This points to how he was a high profile target, such as a resistance leader/bandit leader, and how armed companions was not the custom for peaceful gatherings.

Lots of debates.

not quit sure what your saying here? anyone can have any theory they like, some think aliens built the perimids in egypt. Your above theory has no evidence for it at all. The historical data all points to the jesus of the bible and those events, but many cant accept that idea so they invent there own theroes on jesus they feel comfortable with. I am surprised some still believe there was no Nazareth in time of jesus. for example

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as




Right... so God being the originator of all (he is the first mover, the necessary being) the architect behind temporal and spiritual reality, did not create evil... He did not create Lucifer who was a liar from the beginning. The omniscience of God couldn't predict evil? I'm trying to make sense of it all... If God did not create evil, then it too must have existed from eternity. If not it must have been created - and God is the creator of everything. So which is it? Am I arguing a false dichotomy here?


I did... in the post before the one you asked. I already said, I am not considering the Bible as historic evidence for Jesus for obvious reasons. Your OP was about evidence outside the Bible, hence NT is not relevant in this question.


Bollox... according to evangelist scholars perhaps.
I am not disputing that Christians existed at some point, which is not what we are discussing here. Many "Christs" has existed in history and I mentioned one already: Agrippa I, the appointed King of the Jews around Josephus was called Chrestus by Josephus. See where I am going with this? Hence it was these Chrestians that the Romans were talking about. Pilate is most probably an interpolation in Josephus, besides, Pilate probably put down many Jewish rebellion leaders. I am disputing any reference that Christ was in Rome... give me any backup on this from either the Bible or early bible apologists.


Simple logic my friend. Suetonius wrote this in ca. 110 AD
Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.


So this Chresto was causing the Jews to riot and they were thus expelled from Rome.
This is the alledged reference... to Jesus from Nazareth. The problem with this is that Claudius ruled in Rome 41 - 54 AD, long after the ascension of Christ.
So... Chrestus (The good) instigated the Jews, not the Christians btw to riot. Josephus makes a point of recording that Herod Agrippa I was appointed by *drumroll* Claudius to be the King of Judea... and was called *another drumrolll* Chrestus by Josephus. I think... it is a WIDE stretch to tie Jesus or Christians to this obscure passage from Suetonius. It is a clear case of looking for evidence to support a pre conceived conclusion.
"Oh.. look someone mentioned Christians.. this is clearly evidence that Jesus is the Christ"...

The mere fact that anyone has tampered with historic records should give us a clear and big warning that someone has sunken to mere lies to support their cause. That in itself is seriously incriminating, and is why Christian scholars are desperate to belittle them. It calls for skepticism to the entirety of records from these people.


Perhaps those scholars are evangelists? Again... the established scholarship aren't too threatened by those and are generally the joke of the class.



sorry my cpu is not working so i cant break up response.

good questions
god is not the creator of evil, he is the creator of human [and angelic] free will. When someone has a choice,they can chose to do evil. Yes god knew the world would fall and sin would happen, that is why it said jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. He chose in spite of this [read bible] to create the world. So while he did not directly create evil, he did chose to create the agents [human,satan] that would do evil. The whole thing is better exspalined [i hope]in my why is there death suffering thread.



I think you should read my op, i say there is abosolutley no reason to reject the bible as the earliest accounts and most accurate of the life of jesus, written closest in time and by those who lived with him. I am very interested to hear why on a historical basis you reject the nt. The fact is you cannot,it is only based your your own worldview you do so, that is not a good historian, to reject the bulk of writings on someone because you object to the content. So as i ask,why do you reject the nt,than please exsaplin to me how they came about with this idea of jesus person.




as i said please support your claims. Please show me these other christs at the time. But even so the info is to clear to anyone it speaks of jesus. You reject what seems to be any reference to jesus with no reason at all [worldview]. Please provide evidence of this other Christ that is not jesus, than why its him not jesus of bible he refers to, as he does other biblical people james his brother and john the baptist. So know you at least admit or say it refers to a christ at time of jesus,crucified,and refers to james his brother and john the baptist, we have come along way from your first post.




first many saw jews/christian as one and the same for a few centuries after Christ. I was unaware this was suppose to reference jesus, i agree it cant be possible. Just christians, but how is there christian with no Christ? in your opinion.




maybe read my post, you will see atheist liberal scholars, that is why i quoted liberals as saying no one rejects, you sir are on the fringe and the end of the joke, even to liberals on this one. Simple read your explanations you give, only your religious worldview could drive those conclusions, not historical data.

[Sigurd]

Dear TR...

My world view does not demand that Jesus was fictional. Not at all. I am not an atheist.
I have beef with evangelism, that might be true and as such I could come forward as a little bias towards claims from that group. My experience with said group has led me to believe they are extremists and as such will believe they go to great lengths to support their facts. Even fraud and forgery.
That is about the extent on which I will comment on said group, as it might get quite nasty should I get worked up by it.

I do not reject the Bible, but chose to not include it in my criticism towards reference to historical Jesus. The obvious reason being - that it indisputable refers to the character of Jesus the son of God. I have my thoughts about the origin of the Bible, but I am not arguing this here. This is about external reference by non-Christian historians. Christ or Messiah was a promised leader that would redeem the Jews from oppression/slavery etc. It was foremost a Jewish tradition and Christ is just the translation of Messiah in Greek. The anointed one.

The were many claimants to this title: Judas of Maccabeus, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and later his grandson Menahem, Theudas etc.. basically any of the leaders of any revolt would be a possible messiah as the Jews saw it. Even Josephus himself was a revolt leader before recording the history of the Jews. That is why one should look with a critical eye towards, not considering tampering with said references, these Christian claims (because that is what we are dealing with here) that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders. Ask a Jewish historian about these references and he will find many candidates to them, because we are in fact dealing with Jewish history here.

Atheist scholars... hehe... well most of them are a joke. No.. I refer to the established school before pseudo scholars from the new age Christianity came with their pre-conceived idea that the Bible is the literal, unfalsifiable, unerring and infallible product of God. A ridiculous idea to most scholars.
A scholar is a methodological scientist and will be as objective as possible when doing research. I doubt extremists fall into that category.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm afraid some lurkers might think this is an actual discussion.

TR, you cant refer to threads where your points have been shot down repeatedly as evidence supporting your new, as idiotic, claims :wall:

Does your parents make you wear a helmet much?

[total relism]

I'm afraid some lurkers might think this is an actual discussion.

TR, you cant refer to threads where your points have been shot down repeatedly as evidence supporting your new, as idiotic, claims :wall:

Does your parents make you wear a helmet much?


kadagar, you cant refer to things that did not happen or you have no evidence for,you need to provide support or link as i do to show truth or what happened. Your claim is baseless and unsupported,did not your parents teach you to not lie and make baseless claims?

I will prove i am correct by asking you to back up your claim,you say somewhere i have referenced a previous thread on a topic already brought up,that has been refuted and shown to be idiotic and my points "shot down". now we all have threads avalibel to look over, so now all you must do is go find on this thread my reference to previous that was shot down,than show were/how it was shot down .

[B]good luck my friend.




Dear TR...

My world view does not demand that Jesus was fictional. Not at all. I am not an atheist.
I have beef with evangelism, that might be true and as such I could come forward as a little bias towards claims from that group. My experience with said group has led me to believe they are extremists and as such will believe they go to great lengths to support their facts. Even fraud and forgery.
That is about the extent on which I will comment on said group, as it might get quite nasty should I get worked up by it.

I do not reject the Bible, but chose to not include it in my criticism towards reference to historical Jesus. The obvious reason being - that it indisputable refers to the character of Jesus the son of God. I have my thoughts about the origin of the Bible, but I am not arguing this here. This is about external reference by non-Christian historians. Christ or Messiah was a promised leader that would redeem the Jews from oppression/slavery etc. It was foremost a Jewish tradition and Christ is just the translation of Messiah in Greek. The anointed one.

The were many claimants to this title: Judas of Maccabeus, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and later his grandson Menahem, Theudas etc.. basically any of the leaders of any revolt would be a possible messiah as the Jews saw it. Even Josephus himself was a revolt leader before recording the history of the Jews. That is why one should look with a critical eye towards, not considering tampering with said references, these Christian claims (because that is what we are dealing with here) that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders. Ask a Jewish historian about these references and he will find many candidates to them, because we are in fact dealing with Jewish history here.

Atheist scholars... hehe... well most of them are a joke. No.. I refer to the established school before pseudo scholars from the new age Christianity came with their pre-conceived idea that the Bible is the literal, unfalsifiable, unerring and infallible product of God. A ridiculous idea to most scholars.
A scholar is a methodological scientist and will be as objective as possible when doing research. I doubt extremists fall into that category.


than please provide why you reject nt as historical documents.

also i do not give evangelism ideas/facts. but historical documents and quotes from liberal over and over, that just goes to show they support the idea jesus was real person because you think they are from evangelist. But if you fell that my op or documents were by them please support, in fact most were anti christian or enemies for historical documents. Than the modern scholars quoted are atheist liberals. But your dealings with some people should never cloud how you view historical documents that support a group you dont like because of personal dealings.


?so as i said all along, because the nt says [the closest historical documents to jesus in time should be most authentic] you reject because it says jesus is son of god. That does not match or fit with your religious worldview so you reject it, not based on historical data. This thread is not about if jesus is who the bible says, but was Jesus a actual person. as for jewish tradition, yes the ot speaks of coming messiah,jesus was jewish,Christianity is jewish 100%.




33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
acts 5



you than claim
"that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders"

please support, what jesus from nazareth at that time led a revolt and was crucified?, you so easily ignore all evidence that does not fit what you like.




I will allow your last part you wrote to stand and have you read again. I am surprised at it,as you seem to follow the rest somewhat well. If anyone is following just read what i wrote him ,than read what he wrote as a response and how he contradicts himself clearly. Its like you cant see what is true.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
romans 1


btw this is what you responded to on your last part
maybe read my post, you will see atheist liberal scholars, that is why i quoted liberals as saying no one rejects, you sir are on the fringe and the end of the joke, even to liberals on this one. Simple read your explanations you give, only your religious worldview could drive those conclusions, not historical data.

[Sigurd]

than please provide why you reject nt as historical documents.

also i do not give evangelism ideas/facts. but historical documents and quotes from liberal over and over, that just goes to show they support the idea jesus was real person because you think they are from evangelist. But if you fell that my op or documents were by them please support, in fact most were anti christian or enemies for historical documents. Than the modern scholars quoted are atheist liberals. But your dealings with some people should never cloud how you view historical documents that support a group you dont like because of personal dealings.

?so as i said all along, because the nt says [the closest historical documents to jesus in time should be most authentic] you reject because it says jesus is son of god. That does not match or fit with your religious worldview so you reject it, not based on historical data. This thread is not about if jesus is who the bible says, but was Jesus a actual person. as for jewish tradition, yes the ot speaks of coming messiah,jesus was jewish,Christianity is jewish 100%.

I am sorry m8... you English is really starting to degrade. I am having trouble understanding the meaning behind what you write.
I already told you that I will not discuss NT as evidence for historical Jesus. What would the point be? It was written by "Christians".



33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
acts 5

And quoting the Bible will counter exactly which claim I made? That the Jews considered more candidates to the title of Messiah? Disciples killed and dispersed? and what exactly happened to Jesus' followers according to the Bible? What did Jesus prophesy would happen to his followers in the near future according to the Bible?



you than claim
"that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders"

please support, what jesus from nazareth at that time led a revolt and was crucified?, you so easily ignore all evidence that does not fit what you like.

That is my whole claim... there are no Jesus from Nazareth in any of the references. Josephus' TF is a fraud. The rest does not mention the name of Jesus of Nazareth. You mention e.g. Talmud. Have you actually read the reference there?


On the liberal vs evangelical scholars.
I am familiar with the use of "supporting" references by extremists. They usually quote out of context and "adjust" the quote a little to make it suit their agenda. I have been quoted like that many times. Most resent example in the last quote above.
I take such quotes with a grain of salt until I am able to read it in context and by the originator.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, TR, I'd direct you to any of your first 5 threads. If the scorn and ridicule you were met with there doesn't tell you something, there really isn't much I can do.

You don't even understand your own sources.

[total relism]

Well, TR, I'd direct you to any of your first 5 threads. If the scorn and ridicule you were met with their doesn't tell you something, there really isn't much I can do.

You don't even understand your own sources.


proving my point, you cant point to any even one instance to support your claim. Unless scorn and ridicule count as what you said

"your points have been shot down repeatedly as evidence supporting your new, as idiotic, claims "

however to most, emotional ridicule,name calling etc with nothing to back it up,is what most realize [you may eventually i hope] as what people do when they have no arguments to make. As you said you have multiple threads to try and show just one example based on evidence , yet all you can do is scorn and ridicule. It may work for you now,but someday dont be so easily convinced by tactics. Start by looking up

Question begging epithet
ad hominem






I am sorry m8... you English is really starting to degrade. I am having trouble understanding the meaning behind what you write.
I already told you that I will not discuss NT as evidence for historical Jesus. What would the point be? It was written by "Christians".


And quoting the Bible will counter exactly which claim I made? That the Jews considered more candidates to the title of Messiah? Disciples killed and dispersed? and what exactly happened to Jesus' followers according to the Bible? What did Jesus prophesy would happen to his followers in the near future according to the Bible?


That is my whole claim... there are no Jesus from Nazareth in any of the references. Josephus' TF is a fraud. The rest does not mention the name of Jesus of Nazareth. You mention e.g. Talmud. Have you actually read the reference there?


On the liberal vs evangelical scholars.
I am familiar with the use of "supporting" references by extremists. They usually quote out of context and "adjust" the quote a little to make it suit their agenda. I have been quoted like that many times. Most resent example in the last quote above.
I take such quotes with a grain of salt until I am able to read it in context and by the originator.


as said, you have no logical reason to reject the best closest historical documents other than your worldview. Faulty logic my friend

Appeal to motive-

also you still wont exspalin how and why the nt documents are the way they are with no jesus.





no idea what your saying please type again. I was saying same thing Gamaliel said in acts, if those other claimed messiahs were true, they would not have been stopped. Also what other messiah would you say fulfilled the profacies of ot like jesus. We are a ways from op here. Your claim was that just because documents refer to jesus the messiah,that it could be another person thought of as messiah from Nazareth that just happened to live same time and was crucified and had brother james,eventualy you just gota see through your own bs.


as stated you reject any reference to jesus as could be someone else, than claim no reference to jesus,please find anyone who holds to your view. Noone rejects 2 of the 3 references to jesus by Josephus, most dont all 3, some do part of third. You than ignore all else than make claim no references to jesus, this to me fits here perfect [just different subject].well never mind cant get cartoon to work.


fair enough,however with no evidence you base it on nothing but your own bias. I happen to have herd many of these men in person [or video/book] say these things, you cant find online most in full to check if you care to.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, yeah... For a starter, you have been unable to to prove there is a god... That's kind of a deal breaker here, no?

Secondly, you have been unable to explain why, if there would be a god, this god is the god you believe in.

Until you have got your act together on these two issues, everything else you say is built on a foundation of... Nothing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh... and if you dare reference OP or other threads without explicitly showing the evidence, I will go all tribesman on you.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Kadagar_AV]

PS: I still claim bot.

They don't sell helmets that thick.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Yeah i never said the whole passage had to be correct, he refers to christian 3 times or Christ. The section that is in question i dont care if it is original or not,and has nothing to do with op. It was however quoted in 4th century in full. What do you mean by there is more evidence for Abraham Lincoln? and what of Julius ceaser?.

If it is quoted by a 4th Century author (though again in a much later manuscript) this does not mean that it accurately represents the original text. The Testimonium Flavianum must have been subject to some alteration because the language used and the points raised do not fit with the wider authorial context.

There is a wider range of evidence for the existence of both Abraham Lincoln (photos, letters and histories from the period) and Caesar (numerous letters of Cicero, including a few from Caesar himself; Caesar's own works; and the historical record of his life which comes from a wide range of corpi) than for Jesus Christ (many references within the NT corpus and very few scattered references elsewhere in the classical literature of the period). As Sigurd has pointed out, the majority of the references to Jesus occur in the NT, which is written within a narrow tradition aimed at proving his divinity. As such, corroborating evidence should be sought from the wider tradition, which is lacking. This is to be expected, since Jesus was, allegedly, a Jewish commoner (at least a popular leader), and the greco-roman sources are focused on military and political issues which affected Rome. However, there is little direct evidence either way.


as stated you reject any reference to jesus as could be someone else, than claim no reference to jesus,please find anyone who holds to your view. Noone rejects 2 of the 3 references to jesus by Josephus, most dont all 3, some do part of third. You than ignore all else than make claim no references to jesus, this to me fits here perfect [just different subject].well never mind cant get cartoon to work.

More accurately, few reject the first two references, and some (really very few) defend the third. Sigurd's position is extreme, but perfectly defensible: indeed, more defensible than the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum. In any case, if I read him correctly, he is merely playing devil's advocate, I do not believe that he genuinely thinks that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.



fair enough,however with no evidence you base it on nothing but your own bias. I happen to have herd many of these men in person [or video/book] say these things, you cant find online most in full to check if you care to.

Because I have little time I will only comment on those which you cite in the last two sections of 17:

William Craig - Evangelical Creationist. Enough said.
Blaiklock - An interesting example. Apparently a well-known Christian apologist from the 1950s-80s. Certainly he identified as a classicist, and wrote a book analysing Euripides' Bacchae. I know this because some of my first-year Classics students referenced it. It suggests that there are elements of monotheism and Christian values in a play written in the 430s BCE. Needless to say I advised them to use extreme caution with such material and suggested that more recent scholarship might be more accurate.
Johnson - Conservative Christian.
Ehrman - Labelled 'atheist' by you, but actually agnostic, and formerly a staunch believer. A former seminarian whose views on Christianity have evolved slowly over a number of years. Without the wider context it is impossible to say whether this is an early or current opinion.
Crossan - A controversial, but certainly deeply religious man. While he questions aspects of the NT he does not question the underlying validity of some aspects, including the crucifixion.
Schweizter Braaten, Bornkamm - All religious scholars writing in an earlier period, in which questioning the status quo was tantamount to academic suicide.

My point is not that those cited have a flawed approach, but merely that if, as you say, those not of the Christian faith find what they wish too, that equally applies to these men.

[Kadagar_AV]

:stare:

[Sigurd]

Sigurd's position is extreme ... he is merely playing devil's advocate, I do not believe that he genuinely thinks that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.

:thumbsup:

I think we are progressing. TR's content is more his own, and all though he is seriously entrenched, our Onagers are softening that wall of his.
I pushed a little on the philosophical area but think TR is not ready to consider such.

The more we object, the more he needs to refine his argument -> progress. :sneaky:

[total relism]

TR, yeah... For a starter, you have been unable to to prove there is a god... That's kind of a deal breaker here, no?

Secondly, you have been unable to explain why, if there would be a god, this god is the god you believe in.

Until you have got your act together on these two issues, everything else you say is built on a foundation of... Nothing.



This is what people do when they lose a discussion and realize they have no logical arguments.

Red Herring Fallacy
A#red herring fallacy#is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion




Oh... and if you dare reference OP or other threads without explicitly showing the evidence, I will go all tribesman on you.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


maybe that is the problem if so i am sorry. On my op under 17 it says Spoiler Alert, click show to read: than a white button to the right that says show, click on that.




If it is quoted by a 4th Century author (though again in a much later manuscript) this does not mean that it accurately represents the original text. The Testimonium Flavianum must have been subject to some alteration because the language used and the points raised do not fit with the wider authorial context.

There is a wider range of evidence for the existence of both Abraham Lincoln (photos, letters and histories from the period) and Caesar (numerous letters of Cicero, including a few from Caesar himself; Caesar's own works; and the historical record of his life which comes from a wide range of corpi) than for Jesus Christ (many references within the NT corpus and very few scattered references elsewhere in the classical literature of the period). As Sigurd has pointed out, the majority of the references to Jesus occur in the NT, which is written within a narrow tradition aimed at proving his divinity. As such, corroborating evidence should be sought from the wider tradition, which is lacking. This is to be expected, since Jesus was, allegedly, a Jewish commoner (at least a popular leader), and the greco-roman sources are focused on military and political issues which affected Rome. However, there is little direct evidence either way.



More accurately, few reject the first two references, and some (really very few) defend the third. Sigurd's position is extreme, but perfectly defensible: indeed, more defensible than the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum. In any case, if I read him correctly, he is merely playing devil's advocate, I do not believe that he genuinely thinks that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.




Because I have little time I will only comment on those which you cite in the last two sections of 17:

William Craig - Evangelical Creationist. Enough said.
Blaiklock - An interesting example. Apparently a well-known Christian apologist from the 1950s-80s. Certainly he identified as a classicist, and wrote a book analysing Euripides' Bacchae. I know this because some of my first-year Classics students referenced it. It suggests that there are elements of monotheism and Christian values in a play written in the 430s BCE. Needless to say I advised them to use extreme caution with such material and suggested that more recent scholarship might be more accurate.
Johnson - Conservative Christian.
Ehrman - Labelled 'atheist' by you, but actually agnostic, and formerly a staunch believer. A former seminarian whose views on Christianity have evolved slowly over a number of years. Without the wider context it is impossible to say whether this is an early or current opinion.
Crossan - A controversial, but certainly deeply religious man. While he questions aspects of the NT he does not question the underlying validity of some aspects, including the crucifixion.
Schweizter Braaten, Bornkamm - All religious scholars writing in an earlier period, in which questioning the status quo was tantamount to academic suicide.

My point is not that those cited have a flawed approach, but merely that if, as you say, those not of the Christian faith find what they wish too, that equally applies to these men.


i am not saying i dont agree with you, but there is no proof other than saying it does not fit the flow. That it was not written how we think it should is no proof at all. But agagin in matters not to me op if sections were added/edited in the Testimonium Flavianum or not. Most all would say the orginal of that section still refers to jesus,just not as messiah etc.

more for Abraham and Caesar
Please show me all the writings we have for both of those men in total. Each one. I would like to compare total documents of these two to jesus, please provide.

I disagree there is little writings on jesus,for the time period. The nt authors wrote what was believed of him from the time period and place he lived,that he was believed to be the son of god has nothing to do with the accuracy or opinions of those closest in time/place to his life.





very few defend it[B] in full. So your saying his position [not sure he wont commit] im asumning that not writings of jesus exists are genuine, is more defensible than defending than defensible than the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum in whole or part? I will take that up with you. I dont even care or think that it is original in whole, but i will defend that better than you could his position. Please define his position defend it and attack this one [just for fun].




William Craig- A former atheist historian biblical scholar well respected around the world and brings up quote in debates with atheist when they claim this.

Appeal to motive-#a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is#necessarily#false. Suspect, yes, but not false.

Blaiklock- provide


Johnson -
Appeal to motive-#a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is#necessarily#false. Suspect, yes, but not false.






Ehrman- anyone up to date would know bart ehrman. He is most used/quoted/media reviewed atheistic scholar who attacks the bible today, he is famous for attacking the translation of the bible. he debates often, read my translation of the bible thread, it has 2 recent debates with him, you will soon find his views.

Crossan- founded the founded the Jesus Seminar-nuff said

Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors.[citation needed] He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable.[citation needed] He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4]


Schweizter - challenged the prominent secular view of jesus as well as the traditional Christian view.

leading NT critical scholar Gunter Bornkamm U


sure you are right good point.
my point, they are not all chirtian,and many very liberal. But the fact is, i suggest if interested watch debates on this subject with william lane craig,denying jesus as a human as atheist bart Ehrman said, no historian would support that idea.


Braaten, Bornkamm




:thumbsup:

I think we are progressing. TR's content is more his own, and all though he is seriously entrenched, our Onagers are softening that wall of his.
I pushed a little on the philosophical area but think TR is not ready to consider such.

The more we object, the more he needs to refine his argument -> progress. :sneaky:


Funny this is just what you have had to do,originally your claim was that all references outside the bible were false or fraud, you than admitted 2 of the 3 josphus passages were correct. Than dropped the claim tacicus was false, oh and ignored all other re-fences/questions and nt for religious/bias/worldview reasons. As for the philosophical area, no idea what your saying, good is good and was before any evil, i stand by that 100%. You decided not me to end that discussion so you could "think about it". I see alot of refining on your part [more ignoring] i dont see how i have changed or any reason to logically change anything on my op.

[Kadagar_AV]

#17 is about Jesus.

I asked you to prove the existence of a "god", and if you could prove the existence of said "god", prove that this "god" is the "god" you happen to believe in..

What part of that was hard to understand?

See, nothing else you writes is worth anything unless you can prove these two thingys...

Wrapping tinfoil around our helmets much, are we?

Oooooh, mustn't forget to go tribesman on you!!

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

i am not saying i dont agree with you, but there is no proof other than saying it does not fit the flow. That it was not written how we think it should is no proof at all. But agagin in matters not to me op if sections were added/edited in the Testimonium Flavianum or not. Most all would say the orginal of that section still refers to jesus,just not as messiah etc...

very few defend it in full. So your saying his position [not sure he wont commit] im asumning that not writings of jesus exists are genuine, is more defensible than defending than defensible than the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum in whole or part? I will take that up with you. I dont even care or think that it is original in whole, but i will defend that better than you could his position. Please define his position defend it and attack this one [just for fun].

True, so far as it goes, but it is not the flow that is the issue...


Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Bolded are the immediately problematic sections. I am sure you can see why: for Josephus to have written the bolded phrases would be like you writing a history of Christianity and including a passage on Muhammad with the words: 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet'. Now, as you point out, and I agree, this does not necessarily render the rest of the testimonium immediately invalid. But it does have an effect on the overall trustworthiness of the section. In my own research, for example, I must deal with scholars who reject the validity of Livy's First Decade as a historical source at all, on the basis that there are some obvious errors. I do not completely agree with this position either, but it is defensible.


more for Abraham and Caesar
Please show me all the writings we have for both of those men in total. Each one. I would like to compare total documents of these two to jesus, please provide.

I disagree there is little writings on jesus,for the time period. The nt authors wrote what was believed of him from the time period and place he lived,that he was believed to be the son of god has nothing to do with the accuracy or opinions of those closest in time/place to his life.

I cannot give specifics re: Lincoln. He was your example, not mine, and I know very little about the American Civil War period. Regarding Caesar, a rough list would amount to: Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War; Cicero's Letters to Atticus, his friends, his Brother Quintus and Brutus; numerous speeches of Cicero (all contemporary); Nicolaus of Damascus' Life of Augustus; Velleius Paterculus' Roman History; Plutarch's Life of Caesar; Suetonius' Life of Caesar; Appian's Civil Wars; Dio's Roman History, and many later/briefer accounts. These are all independent records, they do not result from the same broad textual movement, and a large number of texts are actually originate within his lifetime (ie: his own works).

Again, I am not saying that the NT is not a valid source for Jesus' life, but it does represent a single hagiographical tradition, begun after his death. If you are seeking to independently verify its suggestions, you rely on an external source supporting it. For example, Josephus, Suetonius or Tacitus, but each of these has its problems, raised by Sigurd. Once more, the weight of evidence supports the existence of Jesus, but the comparisons which you are making are overstated.



William Craig- A former atheist historian biblical scholar well respected around the world and brings up quote in debates with atheist when they claim this.

Johnson -

[B]Appeal to motive-#a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is#necessarily#false. Suspect, yes, but not false.

True, but without resorting to tu quoque, but possible motives are worth considering. Since your original point involved numerous citations of 1960s scholars claiming 'non-Christians' found what they expected, I merely wished to point out that such a point works both ways. Even without ascribing intent, one must consider confirmation bias...


Blaiklock- provide

What? It was an anecdote...


Ehrman- anyone up to date would know bart ehrman. He is most used/quoted/media reviewed atheistic scholar who attacks the bible today, he is famous for attacking the translation of the bible. he debates often, read my translation of the bible thread, it has 2 recent debates with him, you will soon find his views.

Crossan- founded the founded the Jesus Seminar-nuff said

Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors.[citation needed] He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable.[citation needed] He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4]

But both had a Christian upbringing and were/are devout. Without the context of each quotation you cannot demonstrate their support for your position.


Schweizter - challenged the prominent secular view of jesus as well as the traditional Christian view.

But once again had a strongly Christian upbringing and would not criticise the fundamental existence of Jesus, despite the controversy...


sure you are right good point.
my point, they are not all chirtian,and many very liberal. But the fact is, i suggest if interested watch debates on this subject with william lane craig,denying jesus as a human as atheist bart Ehrman said, no historian would support that idea.

Liberal politics does not make one a non-traditional Christian. :bow:

[total relism]

#17 is about Jesus.

I asked you to prove the existence of a "god", and if you could prove the existence of said "god", prove that this "god" is the "god" you happen to believe in..

What part of that was hard to understand?

See, nothing else you writes is worth anything unless you can prove these two thingys...

Wrapping tinfoil around our helmets much, are we?

Oooooh, mustn't forget to go tribesman on you!!

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


I think we both know your running from your original bold claim you made on this thread that you could not back up. I will do a thread as i have said many times on evidence for god, it will not convince you as you will ignore or interpret different. Could you make a comment regarding my op?.


Red Herring Fallacy
A#red herring fallacy#is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion




True, so far as it goes, but it is not the flow that is the issue...



Bolded are the immediately problematic sections. I am sure you can see why: for Josephus to have written the bolded phrases would be like you writing a history of Christianity and including a passage on Muhammad with the words: 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet'. Now, as you point out, and I agree, this does not necessarily render the rest of the testimonium immediately invalid. But it does have an effect on the overall trustworthiness of the section. In my own research, for example, I must deal with scholars who reject the validity of Livy's First Decade as a historical source at all, on the basis that there are some obvious errors. I do not completely agree with this position either, but it is defensible.



I cannot give specifics re: Lincoln. He was your example, not mine, and I know very little about the American Civil War period. Regarding Caesar, a rough list would amount to: Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War; Cicero's Letters to Atticus, his friends, his Brother Quintus and Brutus; numerous speeches of Cicero (all contemporary); Nicolaus of Damascus' Life of Augustus; Velleius Paterculus' Roman History; Plutarch's Life of Caesar; Suetonius' Life of Caesar; Appian's Civil Wars; Dio's Roman History, and many later/briefer accounts. These are all independent records, they do not result from the same broad textual movement, and a large number of texts are actually originate within his lifetime (ie: his own works).

Again, I am not saying that the NT is not a valid source for Jesus' life, but it does represent a single hagiographical tradition, begun after his death. If you are seeking to independently verify its suggestions, you rely on an external source supporting it. For example, Josephus, Suetonius or Tacitus, but each of these has its problems, raised by Sigurd. Once more, the weight of evidence supports the existence of Jesus, but the comparisons which you are making are overstated.




True, but without resorting to tu quoque, but possible motives are worth considering. Since your original point involved numerous citations of 1960s scholars claiming 'non-Christians' found what they expected, I merely wished to point out that such a point works both ways. Even without ascribing intent, one must consider confirmation bias...



What? It was an anecdote...



But both had a Christian upbringing and were/are devout. Without the context of each quotation you cannot demonstrate their support for your position.



But once again had a strongly Christian upbringing and would not criticise the fundamental existence of Jesus, despite the controversy...



Liberal politics does not make one a non-traditional Christian. :bow:




I dont disagree with you on first two sections. If this was sig position i would not object, i told him i am ok with what you have said many times. But he than goes to claim josphus as a whole [at times he did others not] is unreliable, than claims only evangelicals accept the unfolded part,to witch i disagree as being false. I would assume [dont know] that mostly or even maybe all that accept it in whole with bolded,may very well be evangelicals only,but not making it false,though i would not agree. Still i would rather defend that passage in full,compared to the view josphus as a whole is fraud.




Lincoln was bart ehrmans, i just went with it. I did not know that about Caesar if true,how many documents total would you say that is?. How many from his timeperiod or within a few hundred years of his life?.


when the nt was written,it was not a single collection, that happened hundreds of years later. The nt comes from multiple people and "traditions", peter,paul,mark,john,james,judas,luke,matt etc. So the nt is really a collection of multiple people/transitions that all are within short time period of jesus, that are confirmed by outside documents,such as Josephus with john the baptist,pilot,james the brother of Jesus,archaeology etc.

ok i can maybe agree with you, show me the multiple lines of documents about Caesar from roman and non roman sources within his time period and well compare.




and a great point it was. I just want to say tho, that craig was atheist,until he and a group of scholars looked into the evidence for the resurrection of jesus. So even if one is conservative christian,that does not mean he was born that way [none are] he was forced by the evidence to do so. Just like ehrman rejects bible lost faith because of translation of bible, so i take him seriously.




provide for this was all
"Needless to say I advised them to use extreme caution with such material and suggested that more recent scholarship might be more accurate."

i guess i take that back,giving a warning is a good idea on this,my bad.



that is why i references the debates with him on my other thread, were his views he can make clear in context for all to see. There really good debates if your interested in biblical translation.



good point



nothing to do with politics,but worldview. Though liberal is used in politics as well.

[Sigurd]

Funny this is just what you have had to do,originally your claim was that all references outside the bible were false or fraud, you than admitted 2 of the 3 josphus passages were correct. Than dropped the claim tacicus was false, oh and ignored all other re-fences/questions and nt for religious/bias/worldview reasons. As for the philosophical area, no idea what your saying, good is good and was before any evil, i stand by that 100%. You decided not me to end that discussion so you could "think about it". I see alot of refining on your part [more ignoring] i dont see how i have changed or any reason to logically change anything on my op.
A few clarifications and I guess I am entitled to.

I challenged all external references on the factual reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of them only refer to Chrestus or Chrestians, which I would argue in this thread (for the sake of giving you a challenge) are referring to a group different from traditional Christians. Chrestus and Chrestians means "the good" and is far from Christ "the anointed one" and followers (Christians). They do not make a connection between the Jewish group and the name Jesus, Except Josephus, which I am entitled to distrust and throw out of the equation (I did not admit to 2 of 3 passages, that is a lie. Ignored maybe).
The other references mentioning Jesus by name e.g. Talmud have their own problems, by naming his top followers. They are not any of the disciples mentioned in the bible, suggesting this is a different Jesus (It was a common name in Judea) then claimed in NT.
I did not drop Tacitus, but gave you a link to a good report that states Tacitus is tampered with (should be dropped).
NT and OT (Bible) will have to wait until you post the thread about it (As I asked for and you agreed to do after this one).

About the philosophy, I chose to drop it because I felt you failed to consider what I wrote. It would be interesting to discuss this in full.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Lincoln was bart ehrmans, i just went with it. I did not know that about Caesar if true,how many documents total would you say that is?. How many from his timeperiod or within a few hundred years of his life?.


when the nt was written,it was not a single collection, that happened hundreds of years later. The nt comes from multiple people and "traditions", peter,paul,mark,john,james,judas,luke,matt etc. So the nt is really a collection of multiple people/transitions that all are within short time period of jesus, that are confirmed by outside documents,such as Josephus with john the baptist,pilot,james the brother of Jesus,archaeology etc.

ok i can maybe agree with you, show me the multiple lines of documents about Caesar from roman and non roman sources within his time period and well compare.

Unfortunately I do not have time to collate a reasonably representative sample, but if you look up the above authors at the Perseus project, you might be find what you are looking for. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman). In terms of numbers, it depends what you define as documents.

Caesar's own 'commentaries' are contemporary, as are the (hundreds of) letters of Cicero to various people. The Latin authors Suetonius wrote biography; and Velleius (Italian) and Tacitus (possibly Gallic ancestry) history within 200 years of Caesar's death. In Greek, Plutarch (from Chaeronaia) wrote biography; Nicolaus (of Damascus) too, though his tome on Augustus is fragmentary. Appian (from Alexandria) and Dio (from Bithynia) wrote history. The point here, that the NT canon is from a much more homogenous tradition.


nothing to do with politics,but worldview. Though liberal is used in politics as well.

Religiously rather than politically conservative... My mistake...

[Kadagar_AV]

:wall:

Seriously?

The helmet probably has its own helmet by now. Probably knee and elbow pads as well.

Sorry to be so... whatever... But it's extremely hard to debate with someone who just doesn't seem to grasp even the most simple concepts.

Let me spell it out for you:

Everything. You. Say. Is. Moot. Until. You. Can. Show. The. Existence. Of. Your. God.

Got it this time around?

It's like someone claiming there is a big pinkish invisible elephant dancing in the room, and then expect people to discuss weather the elephant likes peanuts or strawberries - while the people around him is more interested in his mental health...

:elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant:

[total relism]

A few clarifications and I guess I am entitled to.

I challenged all external references on the factual reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of them only refer to Chrestus or Chrestians, which I would argue in this thread (for the sake of giving you a challenge) are referring to a group different from traditional Christians. Chrestus and Chrestians means "the good" and is far from Christ "the anointed one" and followers (Christians). They do not make a connection between the Jewish group and the name Jesus, Except Josephus, which I am entitled to distrust and throw out of the equation (I did not admit to 2 of 3 passages, that is a lie. Ignored maybe).
The other references mentioning Jesus by name e.g. Talmud have their own problems, by naming his top followers. They are not any of the disciples mentioned in the bible, suggesting this is a different Jesus (It was a common name in Judea) then claimed in NT.
I did not drop Tacitus, but gave you a link to a good report that states Tacitus is tampered with (should be dropped).
NT and OT (Bible) will have to wait until you post the thread about it (As I asked for and you agreed to do after this one).

About the philosophy, I chose to drop it because I felt you failed to consider what I wrote. It would be interesting to discuss this in full.



your original claim post 6
"Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries." "Josephus was probably forged in the 15th century to include the well known Testimonium Flavianum."


claim above
"I challenged all external references on the factual reference to Jesus of Nazareth"


yet reject the bulk of data and historical documents called the nt, the closest best attested historical data to get info on jesus, for nothing more than your own religious bias worldview reasons [some call him the son of god]. Already you have admitted defeat here, unless on historical grounds you can argue they all made this person up and he was not a real person.


Josephus
you now claim to reject all passages about jesus,such as james his brother etc this is based on what? you would be only person in world to reject as far as i am aware. Your reason,you think [with no historical data to show] that another section was tampered with at some time pre 4th century. You never responded to the responses given, or that most accept portions of what you reject. You remain silent.


[from left wing wiki] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

as well as

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic


you said
"(I did not admit to 2 of 3 passages, that is a lie. Ignored maybe)"

i guess i did assume by your non answer that you accepted those passages as well.


the Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus,#Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.



Tacitus
you say "I did not drop Tacitus, but gave you a link to a good report that states Tacitus is tampered with (should be dropped). "



Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



please tell me who this is speaking of if not jesus and christian that started in judea that fits the time period, oh and leader crucified under Pontius Pilate and had followers in rome.



Christus
Means "anointed", derived from Greek χριω (chrio) "to anoint". This was a name applied to Jesus by early Greek-speaking Christians. It is a translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), commonly spelled in English messiah, which also means "anointed".



your argument is about one letter your link admitted is a theory,you will hear alot of things like
"it is possible to hypothesize that there was an "e" under the actual "i"" and the like. your article admits to not giving all the evidence and arguments.

it says
«even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist,
which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chrestianos" in his
original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i".» (my translation)
For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the ultraviolet photograph.


this is no fact and does not change the clear meaning of who the passage is referring to.


you did not respond to
Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112) spoke of the "troublesome sect of Christians."-were do we get christian at that time/space from? with no jesus?.




Suetonius (A.D. 120) spoke of disturbances over "Chrestus" (Christ).
Means "anointed", derived from Greek χριω (chrio) "to anoint". This was a name applied to Jesus by early Greek-speaking Christians. It is a translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), commonly spelled in English messiah, which also means "anointed".


Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings.#Encyclopædia Britannica#sums up the force of the data:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th#centuries.”



as for philosophy, i would love to continue, you said you needed time to think, you never met someone who believed what i did [you claimed].




Unfortunately I do not have time to collate a reasonably representative sample, but if you look up the above authors at the Perseus project, you might be find what you are looking for. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman). In terms of numbers, it depends what you define as documents.

Caesar's own 'commentaries' are contemporary, as are the (hundreds of) letters of Cicero to various people. The Latin authors Suetonius wrote biography; and Velleius (Italian) and Tacitus (possibly Gallic ancestry) history within 200 years of Caesar's death. In Greek, Plutarch (from Chaeronaia) wrote biography; Nicolaus (of Damascus) too, though his tome on Augustus is fragmentary. Appian (from Alexandria) and Dio (from Bithynia) wrote history. The point here, that the NT canon is from a much more homogenous tradition.


In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do.



Religiously rather than politically conservative... My mistake...


you said there was more written about ceaser than jesus,more different sources. I counted 7 from your above [tell me if i am wrong] I would also like to know what they say of him.
There are many more than 7 documents of jesus that make up the nt would you agree?. Plus outside of the nt.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

you said there was more written about ceaser than jesus,more different sources. I counted 7 from your above [tell me if i am wrong] I would also like to know what they say of him.
There are many more than 7 documents of jesus that make up the nt would you agree?. Plus outside of the nt.

There were nine authors cited by name, but this is where things get interesting. Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books on the Gallic War; 3 on the Civil War; Cicero delivered over 50 extant speeches, many of which refer to Caesar and some of which directly address him; he also wrote hundreds of letters, most of which discuss contemporary political events and Caesar's actions. Moreover, some of Cicero's late philosophical works also refer to Caesar. These works were composed in Caesar's lifetime. By contrast no records of Jesus survive from his lifetime.

The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200, IIRC. It consists of the New Testament, which you suggest contains many more documents than the nine authors I cited. However, how many of the Biblical books actually deal with Jesus' life directly? I grant you the Gospels, but the Acts and Revelation do not. Then there are the epistles, which if I understand correctly, contain some scattered details, but do not primarily deal with his life.

By contrast, the later historical tradition on Caesar, limited to ~20 BCE-220 CE, is much larger. The surviving sections of Nicolaus deal largely with Caesar's dictatorship. The Lives of Plutarch and Suetonius contain an almost complete record of his life. Appian and Dio who wrote 24 and 80 books respectively, dealing with Roman history have numerous relevant sections, in Dio Books 37-45 deal with the period of Caesarian political dominance. There are also numerous briefer references, which would correspond to the epistolary tradition for Jesus: I mentioned Velleius and Tacitus, who briefly touch on Caesar, but I might have included: Josephus, Florus, Aurelius Victor, or even Vergil, as well as still others. There are even epigraphic records such as the consular fasti.

Moreover, as I noted before, the NT tradition is rather homogenous: it is the product of men who believed in Jesus' divinity, from a particular cultural background, who lived within a fixed area. By contrast, the Caesarian tradition covers multiple genres, multiple regions, two different languages and cultural backgrounds. Moreover some authors are highly critical of Caesar (eg. Cicero was his political adversary), presenting a more balanced account to posterity. Even including those references scattered throughout Greco-Roman literature, and the epistles, there is much more verifiable ancient material on Caesar than Jesus.

[total relism]

There were nine authors cited by name, but this is where things get interesting. Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books on the Gallic War; 3 on the Civil War; Cicero delivered over 50 extant speeches, many of which refer to Caesar and some of which directly address him; he also wrote hundreds of letters, most of which discuss contemporary political events and Caesar's actions. Moreover, some of Cicero's late philosophical works also refer to Caesar. These works were composed in Caesar's lifetime. By contrast no records of Jesus survive from his lifetime.

The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200, IIRC. It consists of the New Testament, which you suggest contains many more documents than the nine authors I cited. However, how many of the Biblical books actually deal with Jesus' life directly? I grant you the Gospels, but the Acts and Revelation do not. Then there are the epistles, which if I understand correctly, contain some scattered details, but do not primarily deal with his life.

By contrast, the later historical tradition on Caesar, limited to ~20 BCE-220 CE, is much larger. The surviving sections of Nicolaus deal largely with Caesar's dictatorship. The Lives of Plutarch and Suetonius contain an almost complete record of his life. Appian and Dio who wrote 24 and 80 books respectively, dealing with Roman history have numerous relevant sections, in Dio Books 37-45 deal with the period of Caesarian political dominance. There are also numerous briefer references, which would correspond to the epistolary tradition for Jesus: I mentioned Velleius and Tacitus, who briefly touch on Caesar, but I might have included: Josephus, Florus, Aurelius Victor, or even Vergil, as well as still others. There are even epigraphic records such as the consular fasti.

Moreover, as I noted before, the NT tradition is rather homogenous: it is the product of men who believed in Jesus' divinity, from a particular cultural background, who lived within a fixed area. By contrast, the Caesarian tradition covers multiple genres, multiple regions, two different languages and cultural backgrounds. Moreover some authors are highly critical of Caesar (eg. Cicero was his political adversary), presenting a more balanced account to posterity. Even including those references scattered throughout Greco-Roman literature, and the epistles, there is much more verifiable ancient material on Caesar than Jesus.



Moreover this bitc#, lol. I did not know all this about Caesar i am willing to say my comparison with him may very well have been a wrong one and thanks for correcting it.

But just to ask without assuming all you say is true.


how many total documents [including copies] are there for both these men? clearly jesus wins that.


you said there was 9 authors- jesus has slightly more than that,especially if one counts the non canonical "gospels" and the like.


Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books- what time period is the original writings from just wondering,the earliest copies.


Cicero- i really dont have anything here to try and argue. except question how many of these refer to him and what the earliest manuscript timeframe was from. I would not agree that nothing from jesus time was copied,i think it was and used later in the official gospels.


you said
The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200


I would say from 40's-90 ad for nt. If your including non canonical than yes later.


you said
Moreover, as I noted before, the NT tradition is rather homogenous: it is the product of men who believed in Jesus' divinity, from a particular cultural background, who lived within a fixed area. By contrast, the Caesarian tradition covers multiple genres, multiple regions, two different languages and cultural backgrounds. Moreover some authors are highly critical of Caesar (eg. Cicero was his political adversary)


NT alone sure,but that matters not to the historicity of the documents,just the beliefs of the writers [not born that way], did not some see Caesar as a god?. i would not than question if he were a true person. But the nt has accounts of enemies of jesus and what they said of him as well. Plus there is Gnostic views of him,Koranic,jewish,roman etc not just from nt. Writings of jesus as well cover langues cultures etc. But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.

Thank you, this has been an interesting discussion. :bow:

I will merely answer the questions which you raised.


how many total documents [including copies] are there for both these men? clearly jesus wins that.

This is a question which I cannot answer accurately, as it is dependent on too many variables. I presume that you are correct, since during the early-high medieval period (from which most manuscripts of ancient texts survive) copies of the Bible were the main object of copyists work. Volume does not always mean much, however, except insofar as more manuscripts means less errors.



you said there was 9 authors- jesus has slightly more than that,especially if one counts the non canonical "gospels" and the like.

Nine which I named, there are more, as well as archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic sources.



Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books- what time period is the original writings from just wondering,the ear liest copies.

This is still controversial: either during the Gallic War itself, year-by-year from 59-51 BCE, or at some point afterwards, before his death in 44 BCE. As to the earliest surviving manuscripts, I am not sure unfortunately. I would guess 8th-12th Century CE.


Cicero- i really dont have anything here to try and argue. except question how many of these refer to him and what the earliest manuscript timeframe was from. I would not agree that nothing from jesus time was copied,i think it was and used later in the official gospels.

Again, I do not have absolute numbers: the letters and speeches deal with political life from the 60s-43 BCE, and cover the majority of Caesar’s political life. Even if there is no direct reference to Caesar, there are issues raised by Cicero and his correspondents which would be pertinent to the study of Caesar’s life. Once again, I do not have specifics on the manuscript tradition of all these works, I believe some fragments are from 5th-6th century manuscripts.



you said
The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200

I would say from 40's-90 ad for nt. If your including non canonical than yes later.

Yes, I meant both canonical and non-canonical.


NT alone sure,but that matters not to the historicity of the documents,just the beliefs of the writers [not born that way], did not some see Caesar as a god?. i would not than question if he were a true person. But the nt has accounts of enemies of jesus and what they said of him as well. Plus there is Gnostic views of him,Koranic,jewish,roman etc not just from nt. Writings of jesus as well cover langues cultures etc. But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.

Beliefs of the writers do have a bearing on the possible veracity of the account though. Yes, Caesar was worshipped, and later officially deified after his death. However, due to the way in which the Romans conceived of (what was later) the Imperial cult Caesar’s posthumous divinity had little bearing on his actions in life. The NT does indeed contain references to what the enemies of Jesus said, but through the lens of his supporters. Cicero and the historians when they criticise are expressing their own opinions not reporting those of others. It is simply more direct.

Certainly there are other views, but in the main, they are much later. Islamic traditions only originate in the 8th century CE. The Jewish and Roman traditions are subject to suspicion by some, and add very few details.

Just to reiterate, I am confident that Jesus was a historical individual, but there is little independently verifiable information regarding his life, outside of the NT, especially when compared to a figure like C. Iulius Caesar.

[total relism]

Thank you, this has been an interesting discussion. :bow:

I will merely answer the questions which you raised.



This is a question which I cannot answer accurately, as it is dependent on too many variables. I presume that you are correct, since during the early-high medieval period (from which most manuscripts of ancient texts survive) copies of the Bible were the main object of copyists work. Volume does not always mean much, however, except insofar as more manuscripts means less errors.




Nine which I named, there are more, as well as archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic sources.




This is still controversial: either during the Gallic War itself, year-by-year from 59-51 BCE, or at some point afterwards, before his death in 44 BCE. As to the earliest surviving manuscripts, I am not sure unfortunately. I would guess 8th-12th Century CE.



Again, I do not have absolute numbers: the letters and speeches deal with political life from the 60s-43 BCE, and cover the majority of Caesar’s political life. Even if there is no direct reference to Caesar, there are issues raised by Cicero and his correspondents which would be pertinent to the study of Caesar’s life. Once again, I do not have specifics on the manuscript tradition of all these works, I believe some fragments are from 5th-6th century manuscripts.




Yes, I meant both canonical and non-canonical.



Beliefs of the writers do have a bearing on the possible veracity of the account though. Yes, Caesar was worshipped, and later officially deified after his death. However, due to the way in which the Romans conceived of (what was later) the Imperial cult Caesar’s posthumous divinity had little bearing on his actions in life. The NT does indeed contain references to what the enemies of Jesus said, but through the lens of his supporters. Cicero and the historians when they criticise are expressing their own opinions not reporting those of others. It is simply more direct.

Certainly there are other views, but in the main, they are much later. Islamic traditions only originate in the 8th century CE. The Jewish and Roman traditions are subject to suspicion by some, and add very few details.

Just to reiterate, I am confident that Jesus was a historical individual, but there is little independently verifiable information regarding his life, outside of the NT, especially when compared to a figure like C. Iulius Caesar.



sorry did not break up because time.



numbers,true but usually for most documents there are very few in ancient time,unlike the nt, that is were it separates itself greatly and adds to its authority as to accuracy. Many other documents have long time periods to when written to surviving documents.


oh ok,same for jesus/nt.



that is big difference to nt agreed?.



im not saying they are not, i just was saying if were comparing documents/authors to jesus/cesar, than they need to speak of him,not just things that have to do with his time period, otherwise that would bring in alot more for jesus.


well if you take writings of Caesar as bias as you do nt, than who decides what has to be attested?. But again has nothing to do with if that person is historical,that is topic of thread.

[HoreTore]

I would say a better comparison would be Romulus and Remus.

Or Pythagoras.

[Papewaio]

Pythagoras was irrational and died for his sins :drummer:

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/Z8zI6BH.png