keyser_soze

You're oppositional personality is showing...The whole world REALLY is against you. It's all a conspiracy put out by those that are involved in THE plot against the superstitious classes of the world, who in reality are right, and all of the rational people in the world are wrong. Supernatural events really do happen all the time, but they are shy and avoid media coverage. All the fossils in the world really were put there by satan to mislead those poor delusional folks who claim that common sense is the correct way to live....it's all just one big illusion, and meek really will inherit this pollution ridden ball of rock.

But then again, you may just be crazy...at least that's my take on it.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Multiple types of CONTEMPORARY evidence from many sources.

We even have writings by Columbus himself, and pictures of him, as well as his descendants (IIRC, not sure if he had children).


So what?
There are more copies of Lord of The Rings than those 2 - does that make Frodo Baggins more real than Caesar or Columbus ?(BTW - spelling the name Caesar wrong suggests you know nothing about him).


The OT has no prophesies about Jesus - merely passage LATER twisted into "prophesies" - e.g. "Bethlehem" is actually a tribe having nothing to do with the town - and Jesus was NOT called "Immanuel".

Even the earliest Christians show NO KNOWLEDGE of Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events - no early Christian writer EVEN ONCE MENTIONS the following -

* Joseph and Mary, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the birth stories
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* Pilate, Herod, Lazarus, Nicodemus
* miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple
* the trumphal entry
* the passion of Jesus
* the Sermon on the Mount
* the transfiguration
* the trial of Jesus
* the twelve disciples
* Calvary, 2 thieves
* the empty tomb !!
* etc...
until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospel myths arise.

The Gospels, and their myth of Jesus of Nazareth, was UNKNOWN to Christians until early-mid 2nd century.


Wrong.
Contemporary historians and Jews totally FAILED to mention Jesus :

* Justus of Tiberias wrote a history of Gallilee in the first century - the very time and place of the alleged Jesus - but wrote NOTHING about him.

* Philo Judaeus wrote about the Jews and their groups and beliefs in the mid 1st century - but wrote NOTHING about Jesus.

Only LATER writers mention Christianity and Jesus, which proves nothing. The passage in Josephus is almost certainly forged.


Because the evidence for them is overwhelming,
and also,
because they are completly typical and plausible people of their times.

Jesus, however, is completely typical and plausible for his times as a MYTH, not a historical person.



No we don't.
Firstly, the Apostles are probably fiction too, there is no evidence they existed.
Nor do we argue the Apostles wrote the Gospels - they were written by unknown hands much AFTER the events.
Lastly, its NOT at all clear that the Gospels were written to DECEIVE - more likely they were written as spiritual allegory or midrash.
If you read Lord of The Rings as a child, and thought it was true - then later found out it was a story - would you call Tolkein a "Liar" ?


Very silly stuff - you can believe in the Pink Unicorn if you want, no one can prove you wrong - is that your idea of a rational, adult argument?


This falsity has been repeated so many times, some gullible people have actually come to believe it !

In fact,
the Bible is an entirely INNACCURATE as history -

* the Exodus was myth, it never happened
* the 40 years wandering in Sinai never happened
* Moses was a myth
* Joshua was a myth
* the invasion of Canaan was a myth
* the walls of Jericho was a myth

The OT was written many centuries after the alleged events it portrays - no serious historian believes the OT has much early history in it at all.


Thats funny, how come NONE of these first century writers even MENTION him :

Philo Judaeus spent time in Jerusalem during the times of Jesus, he wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history - but not a word about Jesus or his followers or his teachings.

Justus of Tiberias was a writer contemporary with Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.

Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his worked jointly shows Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote many satires in Rome.

There were over FIFTY writers from the first century of Christianity - NOT ONE of them mentions Jesus or the Gospel events (except for some later forged passages, and a couple of vague comments repeating Christian views).


Do you REALLY believe that Jesus "completely dominate[s] and control[s] the world" ? Are you a TV Evangelist perhaps?


Moses did - he's a myth.
Osiris did in times long gone, so did Hercules and Odysseus et al.
And what about King Arthur or William Tell?


No-one claimed that - do you know ANYTHING about what the Mythical Jesus theory is about?


Thats exactly what it is - your rude, ignorant bluster not-with-standing. Your posts show the typical emotive stabs and uninformed waffle of a faithful believer trying to defend a fairy tale merely because its the comforting one they grew up with.


Iasion

Koyaanisqatsi

What a completely pointless observation. Did Columbus ever claim to be the son of god or a messiah or resurrected from the dead? No. So a challenge to Columbus' factual historicity is of little to no importance.

Likewise, IMO, as to whether or not a Rabbi named Jesus said some things two thousand years ago. I'm sure there were many people named Jesus walking around in that region two thousand years ago and I'm sure on many occasions one of them said some things.

Who cares? The only relevant question is to the authenticity of the claims of, primarily, the synoptic authors and/or Paul.

The relevant question is are we dealing with mythology or factual accounts of actual events? Considering the impossible, fantastical claims, it is abundantly clear to even many theological scholars out there that we're dealing with mythology.

No, the bible is a collection of 66 mythological stories and attestations, many of which aren't "books" at all, but collections of letters between cult leaders of the day and/or "visions" people claim to have had regarding the mythological characters in the Jewish cult lexicon.

You make it seem as if we have 66 factual accounts of historical accuracy; i.e., just like history books regarding Columbus. While many history books regarding Columbus are clearly mythologically based as well (such as the laughable misnomer that Columbus "discovered" anything at all; quite a shock I'm sure to the ingigenous people already living in the places he supposedly "discovered"), there are also those which seek to firmly weed out the fact from the fiction.

None of the books in the bible, however, seek to weed anything factual out from the fiction, so a comparison on any salient, cogent level between the "books" regarding Columbus and the "books" regarding the Judeo/Christian mythology is literally like comparing apples and oranges (accepting the already noted idea of seeking to separate fact from fiction).

Care to venture a guess on how many times Vampires are mentioned throughout the past two or three centuries?

What a shock that a collection of Jesus cult mythology would mention their cult icon's name.



This stupidity again? No, we do not have any references to Jesus in the OT, except in the twisted and obviously forced, non-contextual apologetics of the more fanatical cult members, including those who wrote the stories of the NT.

This fact has been demonstrated approximately ten thousand, billion times on this site alone, so kindly look elsewhere for a breakdown of how not one single alleged reference to Jesus is actually any kind of reference to Jesus.

None of which, however, in any evidentiary sense that would prove whether or not the events of Jesus' life (the resurrection, specifically) factually occured, so they are utterly irrelevant.

Maybe they did, but the question to ask would be, "Why?" What would be the motive to make up a ruler of the Roman Empire or a sea-faring slave-trader?

Critical analysis involves a hell of a lot more than just, "Well, it could have happened with Ceasar, then, too." Yeah, it could have, but if it did, who cares, other than historical purists?

Well, to start with and to reiterate, if he did, who cares? Secondly, we do have evidence that the gospel mythology was fabricated based on the OT to make it look real. All of those references to the OT prophets, for example, that, when analyzed, bare no reference at all to Jesus, unless one employs extremely tenuous, forced, non-contextual apologetics in order to piece it all together.

We also have the well supported speculation by theologists that the synoptic authors, at least, have based their writings on one original source of the story (Mark) and one original source of the wisdom sayings (Q).

Not to mention the fact that the claims made in those stories and by the subsequent NT authors are made by cult followers and "converts" and entail a fantastical, impossible story of a man who dies and then later rises from the dead (first spiritually and then later bodily) in order to establish his godhood.

One story that is interpolated by later members of the growing cult.

We know (or have strong evidence of) tampering with the texts by later anonymous copyists, who are also members of the same growing cult and we have the selective editing process in and around 300 C.E. (if memory serves) when some writings are discarded and others given the seal of approval and bound together (non-chronologically, mind you) into what we now call the "New Testament."

There are contradictions and missing bits of information from one author to another; the same story told in different ways with different facts all by people decades after any alleged events took place.

The authors themselves are largely anonymous, even though they are writing as supposed "witnesses" to events they weren't even born to see; with the claim that a supernatural being "spoke" through them as a testimony to their "veracity;" in other words, unsupportable claims of authenticity "just because we say so," kind of thing.

There's also the fact that we have no original texts; all we have are copys of copys of copys and those, most likely were the result of oral history finally being written down.

In short, there is a tremendous amount of highly questionable, hearsay at best "evidence" of fantastical, impossible claims, that contradicts and interpolates one to the other, all written by people decades if not centuries after any alleged "facts," with evidence of tampering and redaction and addended endings, all by cult authors with a vested interest in the maintenance and authority of their cult mythology.

A real man? No, not really. A real god or messiah? Yes, absolutely, abundantly so.

Not any more so than a Stephen King novel.

It's not a matter of "belief." That's your department. It's a matter of veracity, motive, fraud, etc., etc., etc.

Only in the fact that many books on Ceasar and/or Columbus likewise may contain mythological components.

Again, the key is weeding out the fact from the fiction, something the bible (and many if not most of its adherents) makes no attempt to do.

Yes, actually. Every single child in Western Society's school systems, at least at some point, reads a history book that includes Columbus and Ceasar.

As for the most "famous," just insert "in" in front and you've got a more accurate description.

Regardless, what's your point? Are you conveniently forgetting that the christian religion was forced on people--often at the threat of death for disbelief--throughout the world for centuries and/or that the victors write the history?

Well, at least you admit the Jesus we're all talking about is a "mythical figure."

They do if they've got legions of cult guided soldiers with insstructions to victimize, torture or even kill anyone who does not believe.

For someone advocating historical accuracy, you're not exactly being very historically accurate in your fallacy. If the stories spread of their own accord, then you might have a partial argument, but they did not. They spread at knifepoint and by dictatorial decree with severe punishments for non-compliance. For centuries throughout the past two millenia.

Every single one of us that was once in the cult was forced into hearing about Jesus growing up. All which proves nothing, other than its a very powerful cult.

The same can be said for Allah or Buddha. In fact, if fame is any consideration, then Allah or Buddha beats Jesus hands down, depending on what part of the world you live in at any given time.



Then the same is true of Allah and Buddha and Zeuss and Mithra, etc., etc., etc.

Again, for a person so intent on historical accuracy, you're fallacies are just laughable.

First of all, it wasn't treason and Jesus didn't claim to be god, he only claimed (or rather the authors claimed he claimed) to be the son of a god; the Jewish god, no less. Even your own precious NT goes to great lengths to point out that Pilate found no (Roman) law broken by Jesus.

As to the fallacy of dying for him and following him "even after he died," by the same logic Allah is therefore your God.

If you can't be critical, at least be consistent.

Again, Jesus didn't claim to be god; the authors of the mythology made that claim. Why did people follow Hitler? Or vote for George Bush? Or strap sticks of dynamite to their daughters in the name of Allah?

Because people are ignorant and easily manipulated into believing something without evidence, simply because someone in authority told them to believe again and again and again and again, throughout their childhoods.

Just like you. I seriously doubt you've ever stood up in your church and said, "Hey, wait a minute. This is ludicrous. Dead people don't resurrect. What evidence do you have for this?"

And don't forget (though, I'm sure you have) that any alleged deaths "for Jesus" were not necessarily because the claims about the Jesus in the myths were true, but because they followed a cult that was not in accord with the powers that be.

You know? Just like when the first organized christian cult--the catholics--killed all those "heathens" and "pagans" and other heretics for their beliefs.

Does that mean that paganism is the one true path? Because christians tortued and killed them?

See what is meant by critical analysis yet? There is also evidence that suggests the early christian "martyrs" of which you allude to were not killed because they believed in a resurrected Jesus, but simply because they, like many thousands of jews at the time, were the victims of Roman law (or rather, the random enforcement of Roman law by at least two Roman leaders).

This, too, is in another thread that if necessary I will post. Right now, I'm just sick and tired of having to point out such obvious and basic fallacies in your thinking.

Funny, just like the early Jesus cult and the factions that arose in the three hundred years prior to forming the canon. Does the word "Essenes" mean anything to you?

How do you explain Judaism? Or Buddhism? Or Paganism? Or....insert any number of thousands of variations on the same theme here?

Indeed, you've just given great credence to the fact that it was fabricated in order to keep the cult alive. And lo and behold, we have chronological evidence of the interpolations of the passion narrative progressing as the cult expanded.

You've also conveniently forgotten that the original followers were already believers in judaism and other like theologies, such as the Hellenistic Jews.

Again, if historical accuracy is at all interesting to you, you might want to keep in mind that we're dealing primarily with theists simply switching from one theology to a modification of that same theology; one that offered the Messiah that the original one just promised was coming soon (sound familiar?).

It's not as if Jesus just appeared and then all of sudden the whole world believed in Jesus. The mythology and cult was created and then the converts came as result of proselytizing, not as a result of anybody actually being alive at the time of the events. We only have stories of the original cult leaders; stories that were told to other theists in other places years after any alleged resurrection ever took place.

It's not as if they had the internet back there or cars that get 50 mph (desert) or time machines to actually check out the claims. Nor did they have any direct witnesses, only claims of witnesses by cult leaders.

Just take a look at Mormonism and you should see the point. People are very gullible; especially people who are already predisposed to believing in claims people in perceived authority make in regard to deity.

You accept every claim your minister or priest makes every Sunday, right? Well, I got news for you. The people down the street in that Synagogue or that Mosque or that Wiccan Temple all believe the exact same way that you (and millions around the world, unfortunately) believe in their cult mythologies.

So, again, according to your "logic" that means you are wrong and they are right.



That's just so blatantly false I don't even know where to begin. Millions of people have died throughout the centuries for their beliefs. The Jews, for example, didn't even have a resurrected messiah; they only had the promise of a resurrected messiah, yet they all died for their beliefs.

It's just such a patently stupid argument, I can't believe I'm deconstructing it all yet again.

And, no, you're wrong. Jesus was not different, because dead men don't rise from their graves. That was either a lie or a sham and if you can't see that--if you aren't capable of actually applying even the most basic level of intelligence or reason to the question--then nothing you post is worth my time.

That was so "true" it had to be spread by brutal military action...



This from a person who pretends that dead men can rise from their graves.

Oh, sorry. Dead gods, who can rise from their graves.

Don't use the word "intelligence" again. You haven't earned that right, yet.

Bullshite. Everybody who did not do what the Romans wanted them to do was killed. The Jews at Masada suffered far worse than anything any alleged christian martyrs went through, not to mention the thousands that were burned at the stake by the christians or the millions of Jews killed in the holocaust just because of their beliefs.

No christian idiot has ever died more horrifically than any other theist idiot in the history of the world, so put a sock in the hyperbole. It doesn't mean Jesus resurrected in the slightest; it just means idiots who are too stupid to recognize a fraud when they see it will die for their beliefs.

Recall the two airplanes that recently slammed into the WTC?

I'm so sick of this utter crap about christians having some sort of corner on the market of suffering for their beliefs. You guys inflicted thousands of times more suffering than any handful of your own being killed along with all of the other non-Romans being killed! And, again, if that is a measure of veracity, then bow down to Allah right this very second, because the same non-logic you use applies there just as well as it does here.

Well, since you obviously do have a corner on the market on what's "illogical, irrational, and stupid" then I guess you must be right simply because you know how to apply irrelevant hyperbole to your beliefs.

Yeah, real complex. Talking snakes and humans being made out of dirt and ribs and dead men who rise from their graves and a magical fairy god king who lives in the sky and made the entire universe out of nothing; by will alone. Throw in a little transparent numerology and oooooh! Just look at the complexity of it all.



What was that again about being "illogical, irrational and stupid?"

Piercing logic, I must say. It must be true because so many people believe it's true!

Then bow down to Allah. If you don't, then everything you have here posted is "illogical, irrational and stupid."



What a pathetic waste of my time. edited by moderator

[One sentence removed to avoid name-calling. -- Peter Kirby]

Magus55

So moderators delete my flame and move the thread, yet they just let resident atheists slide... I see....

Peter Kirby

The appropriate place to hold a discussion about what moderators should and should not do is "Bugs, Problems & Complaints." Any further posts about moderator action or inaction in this thread will be edited or deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

best,
Peter Kirby

Koyaanisqatsi

My apologies to you both. I let my frustration get the better of me. Being called "illogical, irrational and stupid" (either directly or through inference) often does that.

mark9950

I got it

You have convinced me that this jesus was no different from a greek god.

Jesus is no different form zeus,apollo,or ishtar.

and since the new testament was written in greek,that makes sense.

winstonjen

If you think it's so perfect, deconstruct EVERY accusation on the SAB site. Can't? Don't have enough faith? Please.

Calzaer

I think I've found a way to summon Magus into any thread, to get his ass handed to him!

*writes down: "Loudly... doubt... authenticity... of... Jesus."*

triplew00t

In several of the Nag Hammadi texts, the "Beloved disciple" is specified to be Mary Magdalene. Whom Jesus "kissed on the mouth often." Othertimes, the "one whom Jesus loved" is said to be Thomas, claimed, if memory serves, by the Gospel by the same name, which can be written off partially as an attempt to credit the Gospel's "secrets" as being passed only to "Jesus' Beloved Disciple" or such. I personally think it was Mary being refered to, and later most references were edited out by the male-dominated church leaders.