pladecalvo

You can forget Josephus.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spot on girl!!

The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory”
{Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts". (1877).}


The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.
{Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3 (1776).}



"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}


In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.
{Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"}

Says it all eh girl??



Ah! So you must conclude that if Paul never actually met this Jesus..... anything he wrote about him either came from other people who claimed to have known Jesus i.e. stories, voices in his head or visions.....or of course he made it all up to further his newly formed religion!!

So , like Paul the only evidence you have for Jesus is subjective voices in your head or visions oh!..... and the Bible of course!

Well when I was in school, which was a long time ago granted, the definition of the word unique was " being only one of it's kind". So in order to refer to something as unique you need to be sure that nothing which is the same exists. So yes, in order to refer to me as unique you would have to have information on every other human that exists...to know that there is not another like me. Same applies to the Bible. It can't be considered unique as a literary work unless all other literary works that exist have been examined to ensure that there is no similarity.....and that isn't the case with the Bible. The Bible is a collection of the mythical stories found in pagan religions that preceded it. The stories are the same, only the names have been changed.

Sorry but there is in fact, a lot of doubt about that. The very fact that I doubt the Bible is enough to show that your claim that there is no doubt... is untrue.

Oh come on valley...you're pulling my chain 'aintcha! Non believers are call atheists....we have no belief in gods. Why would we acknowledge the man-god.

Oh! Absolutely correct..but you also need to acknowledge what religious faith actually is. Religious "faith" is the last refuge of those who refuse to accept what the evidence says.

Faith is what is use when you refuse to recognize logic and evidence when it tells you something you'd rather not believe. Faith is simply the practice of ignoring the supportable in favour of a desired belief.

You need to be careful of those voices in your head girl...people have been locked up for less!!


I'm going to try to get back to your other points soon but at the moment, the call of shopping, grass cutting and house repairs are getting increasingly louder and the holes in my back indicate that 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' is not happy.

Hasta luego.....hope to catch you later.

__________________
You never hear in the news... 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the North.- Doug Stanhope

valley

Arghh....

Read this slowly and try to let it sink in....what you suggest is that the apostles died for a LIE that they KNEW was a LIE!

Followers of Koresh-----> Died for a lie that they thought was true
Apostles------------------> Died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

What part of that are you not understanding? How do you explain their deaths? They did not believe a lie the way cult followers do....they would have had to have known that it was a lie and that they were promoting it. If Jesus was a fraud, then He did not come back from the dead 3 days later because thats not humanely possible so they would have been lying about that and the other miracles they witnessed.

LOL....well, I will try and put something together for you if thats what you really want. I've been studying the Bible for close to 12 years now. I didnt suddenly come to believe it was the word of God based on one argument with a believer...it took time because there is a ton of evidence and a person cant build a case for the Authority of Scripture in one sitting...nice of you to invite me to do so of course but I seriously doubt you really are open to examining any evidence I have to show. You are the kinda guy I was talking about to Andre...you want me to jump through hoops for your viewing pleasure, I suspect. I could sit here and spend 3 hours carefully typing out all of the historical & archaeological evidence that supports the veracity of the Bible and you would gloss over the details the same way that you have the points that I have already made, such as the one in the last section.

Yet set a task before me that you already know that you arent going to believe. Can you tell me why? I know Atheists who believe that Christ existed...how do you explain that?

I will get to the next post later on..I cant wait to get to the part you wrote about Paul. I'm picking my daughter up in just 3 hours from a wilderness trip she took with a bunch of other teens at a Christian camp. They went up into the mountains, paddled canoes 3 miles up into the woods and roughed it for a week on the edge of a lake. I've missed her terribly. Its no fun being the only girl in a houseful of men! I want my little girl back with me!!!

Anyhoo...i'll be back to destroy your other post later....

pladecalvo

Arrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!Please supply non-religious evidence that they existed in the first place.

Well I'm ahead of you by 28 years




I'm open to examine anything but so far, everything that Christians have asked me to examine has turn out to be Christian propaganda, Biblical, Christian biased or just plain old wishful thinking.

If that is so....how do I differ from you? I could also spend 3 hours carefully typing out all of the historical & archaeological evidence that contradicts what the Bible says and you in turn would gloss over it. I could give you historical and archaeological evidence that there was no world flood, no tower of Babel, no Nazareth in the first century, no exodus, no plagues of Egypt, no conquest of Canaan, no "Golden Age of Solomon", no" Massacre of the Innocents" from Herod. ......all those things that the Bible says are true.....and you would hand wave it away. I could show you the proven historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel and the numerous failed prophecies in the Bible as a whole.......but you would wave them all away because you don't want to accept as mythology, that which you really want to be true. So what you claim for me must also apply to yourself.

Very easily! They are not atheists. Atheists do not believe in gods ....it's as simple as that. If you know people who claim to be atheist....yet believe in the Christian Jesus Christ then it is very obvious that they and you, have absolutely no idea of what an atheist is.



Yeah!! In your dreams sunshine.

Valley,

We are never going to come to any agreement and each of us producing "evidence" that the other counters with contradicting "evidence" is really just a waste of each others time. Let's do this one last thing. Each of us will produce one piece.......you for the existence of the biblical Jesus Christ and me against. We will agree to read each others "evidence" and after that.....agree to differ if neither agrees with the others article (which of course we won't).

What say you?

__________________
You never hear in the news... 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the North.- Doug Stanhope

Fox Mulder

My position is well known. What "evidence" do you want? Its like me saying to you prove that George Washington existed. Most academics believe that Jesus Christ (the man) existed. Just Google it and you'll find tons of stuff. Here is from ReligiousTolerance which is a pretty objective site--it discusses both the evidence for His existence and non-existence:

Did Jesus Christ exist? All sides to the question

Now you can certainly argue he was not the Son of God and you can also argue he was a mythical being but in the latter instance you would be in the minority because most historians believe there is enough evidence that the probabilities weigh in favor of his existence. In fact, plain common sense would dictate against the likelihood of an entire religion of billions of people evolving from a mythical person.

pladecalvo

Ah! Confusion reigns.

Don't confuse the two Fox. Jesus Christ was the alleged man-god. Jesus was the alleged man. There is no reliable evidence for either Jesus the man or Jesus Christ the man-god but we are referring to 'the man-god', Jesus Christ. These chat's on the subject inevitably start confusing the two. The existence of a man called Jesus is not unlikely. It was a common enough name. Jesus Christ the man-god the other hand, well............



So plain common sense would also dictate that the religion of Hinduism does not evolve from mythical gods...due to the vast number of people that believe that religion is true...... nor does Islam, Chinese traditional religions, Primal indigenous religions, African traditional religions, Sikhism, Jutch, Judaism, Baha'i, Janism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zaroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism.......oh, and don't forget we billions of atheists...we can't be wrong either

How about in the past......it's "common sense" that Zeus must have existed because of all those billions of Greeks that believed in him eh?
The billions of Romans who believed in Mithra and a myriad of other gods couldn't have been wrong either.
Nor the billions of Egyptians that believed their gods existed.
Nor the Sumerians..........
Nor the Incas.......
Nor the Native Americans.........

.....on and on we could go!! The number of people that believe something to be true is not an indication that they are right.

.....Hey!!! I wonder how many people belong to the "Flat Earth Society."

__________________
You never hear in the news... 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the North.- Doug Stanhope

Fox Mulder

Confusion reigns in your brain. You're one of those types of people who thinks if you say something enough, that makes it true. You are simply stating an erroneous position. Most scholars (which excludes you) believe there is sufficient reliable evidence to conclude that Jesus the Man as you put it likely existed. You can dispute it all you want--you can say what you believe all you want and you won't make it so.

You are mixing arguments--keep them straight because while this isn't a subtle distinction its one that apparently is lost by you. You can't analogize a faith based on the teachings of a real life person (whether those teachings are actually of God or just the ramblings of an insane person is irrelevant) to that of a belief in mythical gods. I don't care whether Jesus the man was preaching religion, science, sex, or devil worship. The point is that if a following of the magnitude of Chistianity sprouted from the teachings of a man then logical inference and common sense would weight in favor of the likelihood that man actually existed. If you prefer, use the same logic as applied to the teachings of Galileo--had he never written anything to document his existence, but instead preached his theories of the solar system to underlings, from which a large scientific following developed, then common sense and logic would dictate the probabilities would weigh heavily in favor of his existence in the absence of any written proof. Again--the fact that you cannot follow that logic or apparently unable to make that common sense leap does not make it any less valid.

You should also back off the condescending attitude that anyone who believes in a supreme being is lacking in reasoning ability. There are plenty of people far superior to you in intelligence who believe in God my friend--you should show a little more respect to people who dwarf you in intellect.

valley

lol, why would he make up a new religion and then all of the credit to someone who had already died? Paul never accepted the worship of anyone...never claimed to be anything great (called himself "the chief of sinners") and according to the Biblical account, received a total of 195 lashes from a whip in his lifetime, was beaten with rods 3 times, stoned once, shipwrecked 3 times..and that list was given by him in 2 Corinthians..and his missionary journey was not even halfway completed at that point. Does it make sense that any person would suffer all of that just to start up a new religion and let some other guy get all the credit for anything good that he had done?

Let me guess your next response: "prove that Paul existed!"

I think you are being unfair using the scriptures to support your argument (such as speculating that Paul is the one who formed the Christian religion) when you deny me the right to use scripture to support my argument. Why do you get to do it but not me? Before you speculate again on what may have motivated Paul to write as he did then show me the evidence that he existed....otherwise stop using the Bible in your argument at all.

Wait a minute...are you now trying to claim that the word "unique" does not exist?

LOL, I think that anyone reading what I said would have understood that I was not trying to speak on behalf of the entire world.

There you go again muddying up the waters....this part of the conversation is about Jesus Christ the man, was it not? Plenty of people believe in the existence of God but not in His Son, Jesus Christ. Since Christianity requires the belief in Jesus Christ....a person such as a Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Mormon etc...would have an alternate explanation for who Jesus Christ is. They are called non-believers in the Christian community for their lack of belief in Christ's deity.

For one who touts a knowledge of Christianity, I find it hard to believe that you did not know that already.

Atheism also relies heavily on faith.

I did not say anything about the "Christian" Jesus Christ, did I? I said that there are Atheists who believe that a man called Jesus Christ existed. At the American Atheist website, there is a guy by the name of Frank Zindler who said that he believed for years that Jesus existed. And he was an Atheist that entire time. He has an article detailing how he now rejects his earlier belief.....but his change of heart is not the point. Would you have told this man that he was not an Atheist back when he believed that Christ existed? All that I have told you is that I have met Atheist who believe that Christ existed, but that he was just a man who taught good things. You can tell me that they arent Atheists but you just try telling them that they are not Atheists and see what they say to you!

Here is a graph of world beliefs regarding religion:



Please note that of the 16% of the "nonreligious", HALF are theistic.

I am no mathematician, but 8% of 6.6 billion people works out to be less than a billion, which is significantly less than the plural billions that you claim! You're padding your numbers again! You're not helping your case at all by giving out false information like this. If I am wrong then I apologize..please post your statistics showing that there are billions of Atheists in the world.

pladecalvo

That is an entirely different argument. You originally said that most scholars believe that Jesus Christ the man existed. That is not so. You could argue that most scholars believe that a man called Jesus existed...but they do not believe he was the Christ portrayed in the Bible.



It is YOU that are "mixing" the arguments. What you said (before altering your argument) was "In fact, plain common sense would dictate against the likelihood of an entire religion of billions of people evolving from a mythical person." My response was to THAT statement. Your statement is flawed and you are now getting aggressive because I have shown it to be so. If common sense indicates that the existence of billions of Christians is an indication that what they believe in is true (which you implied in your post) .....then the existence of billions of Hindus should indicate that what they believe in is true. Billions of people believe in the mythical personages of Brahma and Krishna so by your argument (the original one) common sense should dictate that they exist. What is actually "fact" is that even if 90% of the people on this planet believed the same thing....it still doesn't make it true.....just like when almost every person alive on this planet believed that the Earth was flat....didn't make it true. Appeal to number does NOT make something true...and you implied that it did.


Because that's the easiest way to do it.......dead men don't talk!

....and do you actually have any evidence that all this actually happened.....other than the Bible of course.


Huh! Did I do that? Where??

WHAT!!!!!


Then stipulate what you mean. When you refer to "non-believers" I'd wager that most people will think of atheists.

I did.....but had you said Muslims, Mormons, JWs etc I would have understood what you were talking about.

No it doesn't.

Yes you did! What you said was :

"I would hazard a guess and say that many non-believers also acknowledge Jesus Christ the son of God too." Post #163. You are referring to the Christian Jesus Christ.

You need to make your mind up girl. First you say that by non-believers you were really referring to JWs, Muslims etc.....NOW you claim that you are talking about atheists. What is it?

There are millions of atheists who believe that someone called Jesus existed. I myself do not discount the very small chance of that but not one atheist on this planet believes in the existence of Jesus Christ the divine son of a god.....because we have no belief in gods.....not even "Frank Zindler" believes in Jesus Christ. Like FoxM you are mixing the possibility of the existence of a rebel called Jesus with the existence of Jesus Christ, the divine son of a god.

Yes I would! Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is not an atheist.

No you haven't! You have met atheists that believe a man called Jesus existed. You have NOT met atheists who believe in Jesus... THE CHRIST.

Atheists have no belief in gods. Jesus Christ is alleged to be a god.


Valley, I'm going to make one last post on this subject due to what I said in one of my previous posts. Recent events have convinced me that arguing religion is pointless. Those events have also highlighted the amount of time I have spent sitting at this computer indulging in a pointless exercise (you should total it up for yourself...it's quite frightening!!)....... so I'm going to 'retire' as it were!

The post will show the main points that lead to my atheism. You know mate, what's ironic is that you're just very slightly less of an atheist than I am. You believe in the Christian god but you don't believe in the existence of Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus,Hercules or any other of the gods that people believe exist or have have existed in the past. That makes you atheist with regard to all other gods..I've just got one more god on my list than you have.

Nice to have met you mate......and welcome to atheism!

__________________
You never hear in the news... 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the North.- Doug Stanhope

pladecalvo

This article sums up why I believe that Jesus Christ is a myth and is my last word on the subject.


Did Jesus Christ Really Live

__________________
You never hear in the news... 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the North.- Doug Stanhope

Fox Mulder

That's an entirely specious argument--you are playing semantical games--who give a rat's ass whether you call Him Jesus the man or Jesus Christ the man? Its just a name--adding "Christ" to the name does not convert Him into God!

You my friend are an intellectual masturbator. You mistake your inabity to grasp basic grammatical structure and fundamtental reading comprehension as flaws in other people's logic. Read more slowly! The argument I made (which is crystal clear to anyone who objectively reads it--and the problem is you are not objective) has nothing at all to do with religion or mythical beings--a distinction you are unable to grasp apparently.Forget about the religious aspect of Jesus Christ for a minute. My point is that no matter what an alleged real live person is preaching (whether its religion or science or music or philosophy), the fact that it results in billions of followers is strong evidence that the man actually existed. And in fact this is true about many real people throughout history where the only evidence we have they existed is the amount of people their lives influenced.

How do we know whether Plato or Aristotle existed? We don't--there is no "proof" they existed. However, there is such a strong following of their teaching and so many people have recited what they taught afterwards, that that in of itself is strong evidence the person actually existed (not that what they taught is actually true). That's the disctintion you can't seem to grasp.

Maybe someone else can explain it to this guy!

Fox Mulder

No one denies your belief or the possibility that Jesus was mythical. The point most here have tried to make and that you steadfastly deny is that most historical scholars believe that Jesus the man was a real person regardless of whether they are Christians, atheists, or some other religion. That doesn't make your belief any less valid simply to concede that the weight of authority disagrees with you, it simply make it is less likely to be the correct belief.

Dana

I believe I answered this but I can't remember. Jesus Christ in name wasn't real but the man we call Jesus was once alive.

__________________

wednesday

hello dana..and youve just opened a whole new can of worms ...lmao!!

__________________

Dana

*shrugs* i don't check this forum often enough to care and hello wednesday!

__________________

Dana

everything gets drowned out by novel length posts its hard to keep up.

__________________