Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-22-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that there is no historical information of Alexander the Great?

And, please show me what source claimed Alexander the Great was the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Please show me where it is claimed that Alexander the Great had no earthly mother or father.

Quote:

From his conception, his mother, Olympias, maintained that it was not her husband, Philip, who impregnated her, but rather a serpent. This is very interesting because a serpent is closely identified with the god, Zeus Ammon.
http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/divine.htm

Now, what did her husband, Philip, maintain?

I hope you understand the difference between belief and reality.

I think it is written that the mother of Augustus also claimed that she was impregnated by a snake, too.

Does that make Augustus the offspring of a snake?

Quote:

The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

So are you willing to overlook the supernatural qualities attributed to Alexander the Great and consider him a historical person yet unwilling to do the same with Jesus?

Just show me a credible history book with historical evidence for Jesus the NT, instead of forgeries, and I will initiate a fresh investigation.

I have seen so much fiction, forgeries and implausibilities surrounding Jesus that only credible evidence can overturn my position that Jesus is mythology or fiction.

aa5874 · 02-22-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And if Jesus/Christianity did not actually exist at the time specified, we are looking at lies of elephant proportions.

Against the Galileans by Julian Book I

Dear aa5874,

Just a minor quibble, but Julian wrote specifically against the christians, and his term "the fabrication of the Galilaeans" is therefore quite properly translated as "the fabrication of the christians" on the basis that Julian at that time had physically legislated that "christians" be known as "Galilaeans".

Best wishes,

Pete

PS: How do you that strike-out function?

I think Julian's Against the Galileans supports the notion that there were Jesus believers before Eusebius.

I think those who opposed Eusebius would have had a perfect opportunity to exposed Eusebius as a fraud when Julian was Emperor.

Doug Shaver · 02-23-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are just wasting time.

I would be, if you were the one I was trying to educate. When I respond to you, I'm just posting for the lurkers. You're hopeless, but they might learn something.

aa5874 · 02-23-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are just wasting time.

I would be, if you were the one I was trying to educate. When I respond to you, I'm just posting for the lurkers. You're hopeless, but they might learn something.

You won't educate much people when you make statements that are not logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

...There is evidence. It isn't good evidence, but it exists.

Please , give an example that is not bad of "no-good" evidence for Jesus.

Educate the lurkers.

Doug Shaver · 02-24-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You won't educate much people when you make statements that are not logical.

I quite agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please , give an example that is not bad of "no-good" evidence for Jesus.

Educate the lurkers.

On this issue, they don't need educating. The evidence, such as it is, for Jesus' historicity is common knowledge. The only people who deny there is any have been blinded either by anti-Christian bigotry or by failure to understand what it means to say that something is evidence.

aa5874 · 02-24-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You won't educate much people when you make statements that are not logical.

I quite agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please , give an example that is not bad of "no-good" evidence for Jesus.

Educate the lurkers.

On this issue, they don't need educating. The evidence, such as it is, for Jesus' historicity is common knowledge. The only people who deny there is any have been blinded either by anti-Christian bigotry or by failure to understand what it means to say that something is evidence.

Anti-Christian bigotry? Why are so quick to make these type of accusations?

You still have not given an example that is not bad of "no-good" evidence for Jesus.

Please educate the lurkers.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.