Jade

While this thread is interesting, I don't think it is really an EoG matter. So off to BC&H...

philbo

A bit like the way the date of the creation was put precisely at the 23rd day
of October 4004 BC, and this was taken as biblical "truth" for hundreds of years


On another entertaining note, a parody: "Maybe It's All Bullshit" to Abba's "Thank you for the music"... it was research for this one which brought me to these forums in the first place.

Phil

Magus55

And its also entirely possible that Jesus of Nazareth truly was who He claimed to be, and the Bible is based on the Son of God.

azuresky

Jade,

Let me quickly put this whole Alexander thing to rest. Of course there is plenty of evidence that Alexander the Great existed--only a fool would believe he never walked the earth. My intended challenge to Weltall was to confirm his existence through primary and contemporary biographical sources, of which there are none. Only secondary sources exist. Since he asked me to confirm Christ's existence through primary sources, I challenged him to confirm Alexander's existence through primary sources. Unfortunately, I didn't make myself clear, for Weltall began bringing in evidence for the existence of Alexander through coins. So, I decided to have fun and play along. (See above posts).

Without our secondary sources, probably 99% of our knowledge of Alexander the Great would be lost. That there is some outside evidence for the most ubiquitous figure in all of ancient history is not surprising.

The Evil One

Yes, that is logically possible. But it is extremely unparsimonious, and therefore must rejected on probabilistic grounds in favour of more parsimonious explanations in the absence of any evidence to support this particular explanation.

King Rat

TEO, are you saying that a virgin born son of himself, who walked on water, raised the dead, sighted the blind, unlepped the lepers, rose from the dead after being crucified, and saved all of mankind dead or alive for sins visited upon us by himself is somehow not parsimonious?

p.s. if this Christos fella absolved Adam and Eve of the original sin, why are we now all still swatting at mosquitos and catching colds?

Gregg

You've listed these, but few people here find them convincing.Problem is, few people here accept the Antiquities passage as is as genuine. Whether Josephus said "him called Christ" or even mentioned Jesus at all originally is in question.

What you seem to overlook is, if Jesus and James were so well known that Josephus COULD confuse his readers by mentioning a "less familiar" Jesus and James, then we should expect to find more references to Jesus in other pagan sources. Instead we have Pliny interrogating Christians to find out who/what they worshipped. Why didn't he know already? Why hadn't he heard about this famous Jesus person who'd said and done such amazing things, and whose death was accompanied by all sorts of weird signs and portents?

The Evil One

Well... er... yes.

(Anxiously checks dictionary.com to check that parsimonious really does mean what he thinks it means)

King Rat

Maybe I should've added a smiley or two, I thought my sarcasm was dripping.

Mor-Atheist

Since Magus never responded to Chapka as to why only Christianity would be true when Mormonism follows the same pattern, I will make it a little clearer by using his own words....

Originally Posted by Magus55
Yeah, so there are many messiahs. Thats the point. After a so called messiah came around, people follow him, until his death. And then they disbanded, lost hope and waited for another messiah. But Jesus was different. If he died and stayed dead, the apostles should have just gone back to their judaic roots, and forgotten about him like the many so called messiahs before him. Yet 2000 years later, we still worship Jesus Christ of Nazareth - not Benjamin, not Judas, not Menachem, not Simeon. There was something hugely different about Jesus of Nazareth, that none of the others possessed. The only thing that could keep the hope alive in his followers, and not have them disband and lose hope like in previous cases of self-proclaimed Messiahs, is if Jesus proved who He claimed to be, by rising from the dead.

Yeah, so there are many prophets. Thats the point. After a so called prophet came around, people follow him, until his death. And then they disbanded, lost hope and waited for another prophet. But Joseph was different. If he died and stayed dead, his followers should have just gone back to their religious roots, and forgotten about him like the many so called prophets before him. Yet 200 years later, people still worship Joseph of Palmyra - not Benjamin, not Judas, not Menachem, not Simeon. There was something hugely different about Joseph, that none of the others possessed. The only thing that could keep the hope alive in his followers, and not have them disband and lose hope like in previous cases of self-proclaimed prophets, is if Joseph proved who He claimed to be.

I can take this analogy as far as you want it to go, he died for what he believed, why would he have done this if Mormonism wasn't true? Why would he have dragged down his family with the lies, why would the witnesses never deny and disband after his death? I guess this all proves Joseph was a true prophet of god! Oh wait, no it doesn't, it just proves that people are going to believe and defend whatever the hell they think is right. Lying, changing, and misleading every step of the way all in the name of the greater good (or what they think is the greater good)

BTW In case Magus has a problem with me changing messiah to prophet, it can be argued that Joseph was held on the same level as a messiah, Mormons believe that before you get to christ to be judged, you have to go through Joseph first, etc, etc.....