Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roach Clips · 04-26-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Well, how does this work as the opening of your opening statement? Your opening statement needs to set out the terms upon which you are going to argue. Instead you're jumping in with part of an argument about Josephus as if you're in the middle of a conversation.

Well I sort of was in the middle of a conversation. Try to understand that this is a small forum, where everyone knows each other, and we don't follow proper debating rules and I posted my opening statement 3 posts after accepting the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Conversely, I'm not certain you really have the equipment you need to conduct this debate. Warthog was right. Four same-century Gospels, substantial Epistolatory evidence (of uncontested provenance) and the obvious, extrabiblically visible, beginnings of a real movement, do not constitute "absolutely no evidence". Whether the evidence is everything it appears to be or not is something that requires some study and exploration. I've always felt, however, that it is certainly disingenuous to claim lack of evidence because the oldest documents we have are "fully" two centuries after the events - when for all the rest of the history we have for that period is based on documents the oldest copies of which are 600 years or so later than the Christian ones.

I know Warthog was right. I put my foot in my mouth with that comment and that’s probably why he quickly challenged me to a debate. I accepted because we’re both amateurs with, in my mind, equal chances of winning the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

This just isn't a very good argument. If the best you've got is that no non-Christian bothered to write about him until - well, a mere 70 years after he died, you're actually only highlighting how good the gospel attestation actually is. First of all, there are still possible eyewitnesses alive at that time. Secondly, as I've always argued, the story as told in the Gospel is not incompatible with something that wouldn't particularly be noteworthy to the Roman 1st Century chroniclers - Jesus did not actually instigate a full-on rebellion, neither was he demonstrably a subject King. Judaea was not much regarded as a source of interest to Roman writers (as I believe is demonstrated by the fact that the Pilate inscription - a 20th Century discovery - is actually the first non-Biblical evidence we have for him from anything like a contemporary source!), and the body of Jesus's work, taking place in the rural countryside amongst the peasantry, even less interesting. And yet there was a extant Christian movement in 100CE, recognisable enough for Tacitus to comment on.

Thank you, this is exactly the type of criticism I need and I expect my opponent will counter with something very similar to what your saying right here. And I would continue to argue something along the lines that the “real” non-biblical evidence for a HJ is at best a historical maybe. It can’t be conclusively proven whether or not Jesus was a man or a myth with the non-biblical record, therefore, I expect my argument to hinge on surveying the biblical record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Again, you're highlighting a weakness at the end. 40 years later is well within the lifetimes of substantial numbers of people. Otherwise, this would be where I would start an "opening statement" on this issue - on the lack of eyewitness authors and of the apparently curious omissions of the earliest writings, specifically the Pauline letters.

Again, your right. I should have started my opening statement here but, as I’ve said before, I’m an amateur and I’ll make mistakes. The lack of eyewitness authors and the omissions of the life of Jesus Christ in the early epistles will be a major piece of my argument for a MJ (mythological Jesus).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

It's too easy to knock down the absence of physical evidence. It was 2000 years ago, and Christianity as a substantial, moneyed movement wasn't to emerge for three hundred years more. "to this day they can't find the empty tomb". I know this is only of interest to the devout, but "to this day" there is a place that is believed to be the tomb, but on what evidence it can be ruled in or out I have no idea.

Yes, I know that the absence of physical evidence, taken alone, is a very weak case but I only brought it up to further show how weak the non-biblical evidence really is for a HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Well, now you're asking the question that the debate is actually about! For that reason, and for others, you simply haven't provided enough basis to end up asking that question rhetorically as if the answer is obviously in your favour. As far as I'm concerned, your historical question can certainly only have one answer and that is, yes there has to have been a historical person if a) that person was being written about by the devout within 40 years and the non-believers within 70 years, and b) his life story accounts included certain details that don't make sense for a mythological or fictional creation. Sure, it's important for a mythical divine being to have had a virgin birth, be a miracle worker, rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven. And for a Jewish Messiah, it was essential that he have a Davidic genealogy and be born in Bethlehem. Those are obviously mythological/fictional details and this is confirmed when you see that the Davidic genealogies provided by the two authors that do one differ substantially (and certainly incompatibly) from each other. And then you see that there are two stories that get Jesus born in Bethlehem and yet coming from Nazareth in Galilee. But the Bethlehem reference is the one that is essential. Why Nazareth of all godforsaken places? Why make him a Galilean carpenter? Why call him Jesus - instead of David, or Elijah, or Moses or Immanuel (or even Maher-shalal-hash-baz).

If you have answers to those points, you maybe have the makings of a good debate.

I probably over hyped my case a little bit with my wording but I don’t care. Shit happens. a) I’ll counter with the evidence that all the early authors only saw a Jesus Christ as a heavenly spirit creature, who was revealed only through holy spirit by God because they believed they were revealing events that took place long ago in the spirit realm not by an earthly HJ. Etc, etc. B)I’ll counter by showing how Jesus Christ mythology is very similar to other salvation cults of the time (Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) with similar story lines and plots. The Jesus’ miracles, preaching, death and resurrection are not unique to Christianity and many other “mystery” salvation cults existed at the same time the MJ was born. Etc, etc.

I’ll have to spend a lot of time contemplating what you said here and how to incorporate it into my argument. I appreciate your feedback.

Also, here’s my revised final draft of my opening statement. I changed a few little things and posted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

-in fact the Jewish Historian Josephus also wrote about him several times, as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources.

Even if Josephus did refer to Jesus two times in his "Antiquities of the Jews," written in the 90s CE, he isn't an eye witness to Jesus Christ and could just be repeating hearsay of early Christians about a founder of their religion. At best, ignoring the debateable authenticity of the two passages, it's a historical maybe.

"as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources"

There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.

So far Jesus Christ is at best a historical maybe without using the Bible to prove he existed.

But I'll have to use the biblical record if I want to talk about an HJ (historical Jesus). So let's look at the Bible's record of Jesus Christ. It’s not much better than the non-biblical record. There is no biblical eye witness to a HJ either. Hmm? Paul and all first century writer's of the Bible saw Jesus only through visions and never with their own eyes. Wonder why that was?? Paul, and all first century epistles, never mention a "Jesus of Nazareth," his birth place or any details of his birth, his parents (Mary and Joseph), his miracles, his apocalyptic preaching, his prosecutor (Pontius Pilate), his betrayer (Judas), the twelve apostles, Calvary hill where Jesus was crucified or the empty tomb where Jesus was resurrected. They only talk about a divine being called Jesus Christ (literally translated as "Anointed Saviour") who is revealed to them only through visions from God. Maybe it's because they never heard of an HJ, a human male who recently lived and preached in Palestine until he was crucified by Pontius Pilate of Rome at age 30??? The Gospels with the first mention of a "Jesus of Nazareth" were written at the earliest starting around 70CE about 40 years after the HJ was supposedly crucified...

Not one of the authors of the NT is an eye-witness to an HJ or any of the events depicted in the Bible. Not to mention that to this day they can't find the empty tomb where Jesus was supposedly resurrected. Nor do they have any physical evidence of an HJ, no clothing or any other artifact from his life. Pieces of the true cross never even started to appear until after 200 CE.

Where's Jesus? Was there ever a "Jesus of Nazareth"? Did Christianity begin with a mythological Jesus Christ ("Anointed Saviour" the anticipated saviour of the Jews), a supernatural force revealed only through visions, and not with an HJ, a human who lived and preached in Palestine less than 2000 years ago?

The Bishop · 04-27-2006, 02:17 AM

Although I personally take the contrary position, I felt that you hadn't really had the kind of input that you were asking for. I'm very glad that you recognised that's what I was trying to do (while putting in my own views), and I'm very happy to have been able to help.

Roach Clips · 05-01-2006, 07:25 AM

Well, here's my oponents opening statement. I was kind of disappointed with him, I expected a more indepth response and didn't expect him to contend that the author's of the gospel were eye-witnesses, but here it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

I've been busy getting a 2nd business off the ground, but I'll reply in brief, and include refernces so you can source these out as well:

Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian, born in AD 52-54 wrote of Jesus in a document of the history of Nero, and the existence of Christians at Rome in his Annals XV page 44.

Lucien of Samasota, 2nd century - a satirist who wrote scornfully of Christ and the disciples in his work "The Passing Pereginus" Also elaborated in his work "Alexander and the False Prophet" sections 25 and 29.

Josephus was born in 37 AD - Just because I wasn't alive when Pearl Harbor happened, nor an eyewitness, doesn't mean that it never existed. That was in 1941.

Suetonius - another historian and court official under Hadrian "Life of Claudius" sections 25.4 and "Life of the Caesars" sections 26.2.

Plinius Secondus aka Pliny the Younger - Procounsul of Asia Minor AD 112 - Writing to the Emporor Trajan, in his work, Epistles X.96.

Tertullian - Jurist of Carthage in his work about Titirius, Apologies 1.35.

Thallus - Samaritan Historian "Book of the Histories" 2.113.

Phlegon - first Century historian in the work "Chronicles".

Origen - Contra Celsiun Book 2 sections 14, 33 and 59.

Mara Bar - Serapion - Letter from the first centrury which is still in the British Museum.

As for HJ - hmm, The book of Acts was written by the Disciple Luke - and is a Continuation of the book of Luke - and only very few people would dispute that (the alternative argument is for Apollos as possible author) - John, also written by an eyewitness, his name was John, the disciple Jesus loved, as he's known. Mark...same thing, the eyewitness. (By the way I take Paypal) because when this is said and done, I'm going to collect.

Actually, I won't want to collect, just an acknowledgement that mistakes happen, and well-intentioned as it was, you claims were still incorrect.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2006, 08:06 AM

This should be easy. What a series of hanging curveballs.

Kosh · 05-01-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This should be easy. What a series of hanging curveballs.

Why is it so many people have difficulty with the term "contemporary"?

Roach Clips · 05-01-2006, 11:29 AM

The only two people he used as non-biblical evidence I know about are Josephus and Tacitus. I know nothing about the other people he referred to. I would appreciate if anybody could help me out with a link to a site I should check out or a quick overview of who they are, when they wrote about Jesus, what they said about Jesus, how authentic their writing is, etc, etc.

05-01-2006, 03:53 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Well, here's my oponents opening statement. I was kind of disappointed with him, I expected a more indepth response and didn't expect him to contend that the author's of the gospel were eye-witnesses, but here it is.

As Kosh noted,
your opponent does not grasp what is meant by "contemporary" - all of the names listed are from long after the alleged events.

Here are my notes on the names given :

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php

LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html

THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

Tertullian and Origen were Christians from the turn of the 3rd century - hardly contemporary witnesses.

Quote:

As for HJ - hmm, The book of Acts was written by the Disciple Luke - and is a Continuation of the book of Luke - and only very few people would dispute that (the alternative argument is for Apollos as possible author) -

Wrong.
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.Luke and Acts were NOT written by any eye-witness.

Quote:

John, also written by an eyewitness, his name was John, the disciple Jesus loved, as he's known.

Wrong.
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.John was NOT written by any eye-witness. There is no evidence that the author was the beloved disciple.

Quote:

Mark...same thing, the eyewitness. (By the way I take Paypal) because when this is said and done, I'm going to collect.

Wrong.
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.Mark was NOT written by any eye-witness.

Iasion

Roach Clips · 05-03-2006, 12:38 PM

Ty Iasion, I borrowed heavily from what you posted here. I hope you don't mind.

Here's my rebuttle to my opponents opening statement. It's still in a rough draft stage and I would appreciate any criticisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian, born in AD 52-54 wrote of Jesus in a document of the history of Nero, and the existence of Christians at Rome in his Annals XV page 44.

Lucien of Samasota, 2nd century - a satirist who wrote scornfully of Christ and the disciples in his work "The Passing Pereginus" Also elaborated in his work "Alexander and the False Prophet" sections 25 and 29.

Josephus was born in 37 AD - Just because I wasn't alive when Pearl Harbor happened, nor an eyewitness, doesn't mean that it never existed. That was in 1941.

Suetonius - another historian and court official under Hadrian "Life of Claudius" sections 25.4 and "Life of the Caesars" sections 26.2.

Plinius Secondus aka Pliny the Younger - Procounsul of Asia Minor AD 112 - Writing to the Emporor Trajan, in his work, Epistles X.96.

Tertullian - Jurist of Carthage in his work about Titirius, Apologies 1.35.

Thallus - Samaritan Historian "Book of the Histories" 2.113.

Phlegon - first Century historian in the work "Chronicles".

Origen - Contra Celsiun Book 2 sections 14, 33 and 59.

Mara Bar - Serapion - Letter from the first centrury which is still in the British Museum.

”There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.”

That’s what I said in my opening statement and nothing you’ve said here refutes it. In-fact your just further proving my case that the non-biblical record of an HJ is extremely weak. All the writers you mention here lived long after the alleged life of Jesus Christ and none were eye-witnesses to any of the events depicted in the NT. The earliest and best piece of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus wasn’t written for another 70 years after his alleged crucifixion, by JOSEPHUS’ in his “Antiquities of the Jews”(96 CE). The rest of them are second century, and a couple third century, writers that cannot be used as evidence for an HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian, born in AD 52-54 wrote of Jesus in a document of the history of Nero, and the existence of Christians at Rome in his Annals XV page 44.

I’m not even going to get into the debateable authenticity of this passage right now because this isn‘t even evidence for an HJ. What does the passage say about Jesus?

Quote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There we have it. The second best piece of non-biblical evidence for an HJ. Christians portray this passage as if it is some sort of evidence for an HJ but it’s not. Tacitus (112 CE) was only relaying information that he could have gotten from contemporary Christians about an alleged founder of their religion. This passage was written some 80 years after the alleged events and Jesus wasn’t even the focus of what Tacitus was writing about. This is not evidence for an HJ and only for an early Christian movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Lucien of Samasota, 2nd century - a satirist who wrote scornfully of Christ and the disciples in his work "The Passing Pereginus" Also elaborated in his work "Alexander and the False Prophet" sections 25 and 29.

Lucien (170 CE) wrote this over 140 years after the alleged events and he doesn’t mention Jesus Christ by name. This is not evidence for an HJ and only for an early Christian movement

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Josephus was born in 37 AD - Just because I wasn't alive when Pearl Harbor happened, nor an eyewitness, doesn't mean that it never existed. That was in 1941.

WOW, I refute you and what do you do? You bring up the exact same piece of evidence and throw in a false analogy just for good measure. Great debating strategy.

“Just because I wasn't around to witness the Invisible Pink Unicorn pissing on the Blarney Stone doesn't mean that it did happen.” In short, that’s your argument. Now should I accept that the invisible pink unicorn pissed on the Blarney Stone without any eye-witnesses or physical evidence? NOPE! History doesn’t work like that. Pearl Harbour has multiple first hand witnesses, actual footage of the attack, remains of the battle, etc, etc. What do you have going for you? Hearsay. Hearsay can’t even be used in a court of law but here you go, using hearsay as your best piece of non-biblical evidence. Wow, what a sorry state of affairs the non-biblical evidence is in, if this is the best piece of evidence you can come up with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Suetonius - another historian and court official under Hadrian "Life of Claudius" sections 25.4 and "Life of the Caesars" sections 26.2.

Suetonius (115 CE) refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time but “Chrestus isn‘t the same name as “Christos,“ Jesus‘ name. Also, Chrestus was active in Rome, Jesus was not. This is not evidence for an HJ and in-fact has nothing at all to do with Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Plinius Secondus aka Pliny the Younger - Procounsul of Asia Minor AD 112 - Writing to the Emporor Trajan, in his work, Epistles X.96.P

Pliny, friend of Tacitus, merely referred to Christians who worshipped a “Christ” as god but there is not mention of an HJ. This is not evidence for an HJ and only for an early Christian movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Tertullian - Jurist of Carthage in his work about Titirius, Apologies 1.35.

Thallus - Samaritan Historian "Book of the Histories" 2.113.

Phlegon - first Century historian in the work "Chronicles".

Origen - Contra Celsiun Book 2 sections 14, 33 and 59.

Mara Bar - Serapion - Letter from the first centrury which is still in the British Museum.

Tertullian and Origen are from the 3rd Century and cannot be used as evidence.

There is no evidence of when or where Thallus lived and wrote and there is no evidence that he made a specific mention of Jesus or the Gospels, nor has any of his work survived. This not evidence of an HJ.

Phlegon, too, had his works lost and there is no evidence he said anything about the Gospels. This is not evidence for an HJ.

Mara Bar wrote “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?". It’s not known when this was written or who he was referring to but there is no evidence it was Jesus. This is not evidence for an HJ.

In conclusion, with the exception of Josephus, none of this is evidence for an HJ. And the only piece of evidence you can muster is possibly a total forgery. What a sorry state of affairs the non-biblical evidence for an HJ is in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

As for HJ - hmm, The book of Acts was written by the Disciple Luke - and is a Continuation of the book of Luke - and only very few people would dispute that (the alternative argument is for Apollos as possible author) - John, also written by an eyewitness, his name was John, the disciple Jesus loved, as he's known. Mark...same thing, the eyewitness. (By the way I take Paypal) because when this is said and done, I'm going to collect.

Actually, I won't want to collect, just an acknowledgement that mistakes happen, and well-intentioned as it was, you claims were still incorrect. J .

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

”The book of Acts was written by the Disciple Luke - and is a Continuation of the book of Luke - and only very few people would dispute that (the alternative argument is for Apollos as possible author)”
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.Luke and Acts were NOT written by any eye-witness.

”John, also written by an eyewitness, his name was John, the disciple Jesus loved, as he's known”
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.John was NOT written by any eye-witness. There is no evidence that the author was the beloved disciple.

”Mark...same thing, the eyewitness.”
The consensus of modern NT scholars is that G.Mark was NOT written by any eye-witness.

“Actually, I won't want to collect, just an acknowledgement that mistakes happen, and well-intentioned as it was, you claims were still incorrect.”

You still have yet to refute a single claim I’ve made and practically are your claims are incorrect. Even if I had accepted the bet, you would never collect with this weak case.

Refused · 05-03-2006, 01:20 PM

Roach Clips,

Why not listen to a scholar? Most around here probably enjoy Dr. Robert Price who now co-hosts over at www.infidelguy.com

I've got one of Price's MP3s on my site and you are welcome to listen to it... If you like this, please join up over at Infidel Guy and you'll have access to MANY pieces like this.

Robert Price - Historical Jesus

- Refused

05-03-2006, 07:41 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Ty Iasion, I borrowed heavily from what you posted here. I hope you don't mind.

You're welcome :-)

This list may be of interest :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

Iasion

05-03-2006, 01:20 PM	#49
Refused Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 490	Download and listen Roach Clips, Why not listen to a scholar? Most around here probably enjoy Dr. Robert Price who now co-hosts over at www.infidelguy.com I've got one of Price's MP3s on my site and you are welcome to listen to it... If you like this, please join up over at Infidel Guy and you'll have access to MANY pieces like this. Robert Price - Historical Jesus - Refused

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

04-27-2006, 02:17 AM	#42
The Bishop Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: London Posts: 215	Although I personally take the contrary position, I felt that you hadn't really had the kind of input that you were asking for. I'm very glad that you recognised that's what I was trying to do (while putting in my own views), and I'm very happy to have been able to help.

05-01-2006, 08:06 AM	#44
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	This should be easy. What a series of hanging curveballs.

05-01-2006, 11:29 AM	#46
Roach Clips Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Posts: 309	The only two people he used as non-biblical evidence I know about are Josephus and Tacitus. I know nothing about the other people he referred to. I would appreciate if anybody could help me out with a link to a site I should check out or a quick overview of who they are, when they wrote about Jesus, what they said about Jesus, how authentic their writing is, etc, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.