Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 02-12-2012, 12:07 PM

Your reply is incredibly shallow, lacks substance, and fails to address the points being made.

sotto voce · 02-12-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Your reply is incredibly shallow, lacks substance, and fails to address the points being made.

Perfect!

Net2004 · 02-12-2012, 01:01 PM

pauls crucified god was very difficult to sell to the jews who read their bibles in hebrew. paul even says that he is taking his crucified god to the gentiles because the crucified god isn't making sales with the jews. the place where the eyewitnesses lived was the place where christianity died.sacrifices in the temple continued 40 years after jesus' death , jesus' death did not put an end to sin sacrifices in the temple.jesus is a failed god who was afraid of the jews and who disguised himself as a gardner because he didn't want his ghost to get KOed for the 2nd time. christianity does not need a miracle to impress people . christianity for centuries kept europeans in the dark by reduplicating english translations and chucking out the hebrew. how many christians know that genesis is called sefer bereshit?
you don't know that because...?

Net2004 · 02-12-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

The Romans kept tabs on everything, everywhere they ruled. It took 600 years before the spirit of Muhammad felt confident enough to re-write history. And gallons of blood spilled before it was believed, even then.

600 years later, according to islamic accounts, many died for information which you think is bull s hit. islamic accounts boast martyrs in thier hundreds. so same christian apologetic bull s hit can be applied o n islam. with mohammed he is speaking arabic which is sister of hebrew and aramaic, so mohammed does not use european language to prove his case he uses semitic language. like i said , if it works for christianity it works for islam .read your accounts, gallons of blood was not spilled , it seems like the romans came to pauls rescue when the jews tried to do him over. christian like to exaggerate "gallons of blood" and if "gallons of blood" was spilled who is preserving the CORRECT information? who is making sure that the stories are free from adulteration?

lmbarre · 02-13-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

I am not arguing for historicity of Paul, but rather am asking for a clarification of what the author (whoever that was) meant by the reference to the "pillars."

It MUST first be ascertained when Paul of the Canon met those "pillars". Did he LIVE in the third century and falsely claim he was living in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The characters called Paul, the Apostles and Jesus of Nazareth are NOT known outside the Bible and were NOT mentioned by any non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

You seem to FORGET that the NT is an unreliable source and WITHOUT corroboration by non-apologetic sources.

I PRESUME NOTHING in the Canon is historical unless there is corroborative evidence.

I have found corroborative evidence for Pontius Pilate, King Herod, and Tiberius but NOTHING for Paul, Jesus and the Apostles.

Do you find the corroborative evidence of the crucifixion?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

Toto · 02-13-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

...

Do you find the corroborative evidence of the crucifixion?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

This is only evidence that at most there were Christians who believed that Jesus had been crucified.

aa5874 · 02-13-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

I am not arguing for historicity of Paul, but rather am asking for a clarification of what the author (whoever that was) meant by the reference to the "pillars."

It MUST first be ascertained when Paul of the Canon met those "pillars". Did he LIVE in the third century and falsely claim he was living in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The characters called Paul, the Apostles and Jesus of Nazareth are NOT known outside the Bible and were NOT mentioned by any non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

You seem to FORGET that the NT is an unreliable source and WITHOUT corroboration by non-apologetic sources.

I PRESUME NOTHING in the Canon is historical unless there is corroborative evidence.

I have found corroborative evidence for Pontius Pilate, King Herod, and Tiberius but NOTHING for Paul, Jesus and the Apostles.

Do you find the corroborative evidence of the crucifixion?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

You are merely spreading propaganda. There are ZERO non-apologetic sources that mentioned a character Identified as Jesus of Nazareth that was an Obscure preacher, and was Crucified as a Human Sacrifice for the Universal salvation of Mankind Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.--None-ZERO.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius MULTIPLE attested that the Jews expected a Messianic ruler at around 70 CE NOT under Tiberius.

lmbarre · 02-13-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

...

Do you find the corroborative evidence of the crucifixion?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

This is only evidence that at most there were Christians who believed that Jesus had been crucified.

I agree with you except for the qualification "at the most. . ." What kind of evidence would you accept to support the thesis that Jesus was crucified?

Toto · 02-13-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

... What kind of evidence would you accept to support the thesis that Jesus was crucified?

A contemporary account of the crucifixion made by a non-Christian or an official report from a Roman official would be relatively good evidence.

aa5874 · 02-13-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

...

Do you find the corroborative evidence of the crucifixion?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

This is only evidence that at most there were Christians who believed that Jesus had been crucified.

Tacitus NEVER mentioned any character called Jesus and NO apologetic source ever made reference to Tacitus Annals 15.44 even to support the forgeries in Josephus.

Remarkably, in "Church History" it is claimed Josephus mentioned Jesus in the forged TF but NOWHERE in "Church History" did Eusebius ever use Tacitus as the KILLER evidence.

No apologetic writer, even After Eusebius, used Tacitus Annals to PROVE and corroborate Jesus did exist.

Tacitus Annals had NOTHING about the crucifixion of Jesus up to TODAY.

02-12-2012, 01:01 PM	#73
Net2004 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: U.K Posts: 217	.. pauls crucified god was very difficult to sell to the jews who read their bibles in hebrew. paul even says that he is taking his crucified god to the gentiles because the crucified god isn't making sales with the jews. the place where the eyewitnesses lived was the place where christianity died.sacrifices in the temple continued 40 years after jesus' death , jesus' death did not put an end to sin sacrifices in the temple.jesus is a failed god who was afraid of the jews and who disguised himself as a gardner because he didn't want his ghost to get KOed for the 2nd time. christianity does not need a miracle to impress people . christianity for centuries kept europeans in the dark by reduplicating english translations and chucking out the hebrew. how many christians know that genesis is called sefer bereshit? you don't know that because...?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2012, 12:07 PM	#71
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Your reply is incredibly shallow, lacks substance, and fails to address the points being made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.