Toto

I am not with you. The gospels are not evidence of anything except the story telling imagination of second century Christian writers. Stop trying to get anyone to say that they could be evidence of a historical Jesus.

Toto

Yes, I meant debunking astrology.

The newspaper astrology is so obviously hokum that astrologers who want to charge money for their "advice" have to disavow it. But that does not mean that adding computer programs and complex star charts to an invalid idea can save it.

Look up the Mars_effect - based on selection bias and statistical pareidolia. This was the most comprehensive attempt to find a scientific basis for astrology, and it ended in nothing.

Besides, do any of these more sophisticated astrologers agree with each other? Do they actually have a method, or a model that can connect the heavens with events on earth?

Sheshbazzar

Methinks you place far too much trust in the claims and testimony of these Apologetic sources.
You gobble down their written horse shit without even so much as a sprinkling of skepticism.

If a Christian Apologetic someone tells you that 'Justin' wrote this or that thing, you never even so much as think to question it.



.

MrMacSon

I think the Jesus stories are all or, at least, >90% myth.

MrMacSon

The significant issue is what Justin wrote, not what some Apologist says they wrote or some Apologist,s interpretation of it ...

MrMacSon

Josephus is problematic b/c the first passage - 18 -is widely considered to be added to, and the second passage - 20 -refers to some ill-defined brother, and another Jesus - son of Damneus!!

Pliny & Tacitus are considered to be merely repeating stories about Christians, and repeating what Christians were saying about themselves and their beliefs.

aa5874

You are back with your NO Source--No Evidence--Everything is Horsehit argument.

Please, if you have no sources or evidence from antiquity then I am afraid you won't be able to contribute to the thread.

We have hundreds of written statements from antiquity about Jesus and they can be used as evidence.

What do you want us to use Your Imagination??

Now, there are basically two authors or at least two authors in the Canon that claim to be Contemporaries of 1st century figures of history.

1. The author of Acts.

2. The Pauline writer.

The author of Acts gave the clear indication that he knew Paul and travelled with him "all over" the Roman Empire at least during the time of Felix and Festus or up to c 59-62 CE.

Again, the author of Acts did NOT ever claim he personally SAW and interacted with Jesus when he Jesus was alive before he died.

The author of Acts wrote about the Post Resurrection visit by Jesus and that he Ascended in a cloud.

Acts of the Apostles is worthless for the Quest for HJ.

Acts of the Apostles is very good evidence for Myth Jesus.

Now, the Pauline writer claimed he was in a basket during the time of King Aretas.

The Pauline writer has implied that he was in Damascus c 37-41.

Well, he was supposed to be a contemporary of the supposed Jesus, the Lord, Savior, Son of God and Messiah.

But what does Paul say.

His Jesus was NOT a human being--See Galatians 1.1.

The Pauline writer is worthless for the QUEST for HJ.

The Pauline writings are extremely good evidence for Myth Jesus.

Well, that is it.

The two sources that imply that there were contemporaries of Jesus did NOT know of any actual man called Jesus Christ.

The Jesus of Acts was resurrected being and the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

ApostateAbe

Great points, MrMacSon. I think the gospels were written in the late first century, but that doesn't matter. Do you count the gospels as evidence of what Christians believed at the time whenever you think the gospels were written? I know there is only one sensible answer to this question, but I am trying to probe just how deeply the disagreements are rooted.

Sheshbazzar

:hysterical:


Pssst. The only thing that these writings 'evidence' is that their writers were nucking futz and very dishonest, or duped and delusional.

Nope. your brains.
But I guess that is expecting entirely too much.

"two authors or at least two authors in the Canon that claim to be Contemporaries of 1st century figures of history."
Really not very good evidence of anything regarding any 1st century Jesus if these 'two authors' actually were NOT contemporary, -but nothing more than the unsane liars for a latter cult.

THIS IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION; Do you believe that 'Paul' the epistle writer was an actual contemporary of bible Jesus?

If he was not, Why then are you basing your arguments and ideas about Jesus on the insane religious ravings and writings of an unknown apologist of an unknown date, that was not contemporary, and had never even met any 1st century Jesus???
Do you likewise allow Joseph Smith or Charles Mason, likewise not contemporary to that one, be your sources for determining the manner of life, death, and teachings of your Jesus?

'Paul' and the author of Acts are no more credible witnesses to any 1st century Jesus' life or teachings than are the ravings of any fundamentalist religious lunatic that has ever came after.

What they wrote cannot prove any real Jesus, and likewise whatever they wrote in their lunatic and non-contemporary writings cannot be used to prove that there was no Jesus in the 1st century, or that he was a myth.

The claims, visions, and ravings of these non-contemporary religionists cannot be used to either prove nor disprove anything about a time, place, or situation that they were never present to observe.

Their claim and their stories were fabricated, and tell us absolutely nothing about any Jesus of the 1st century.
One might as well consult the writings and sermons of Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn, or an Ouija Board as being one's credible source for the life and works of Jesus.

Christian religious writings are not worth a shit for 'establishing' anything at all about the 1st century. Why do you buy them?





.

PJLazy

I agree that Josephus is hugely problematic, but it is problematic to both sides. It is obviously not 100% genuine, but it probably mentioned Jesus to one extent or another. Like I said earlier, if you dismiss all the references as fraud, then it makes you wonder why Jewish elders didn't ask why Jesus wasn't mentioned by Josephus and others. If you accept any reference as genuine, then the Jesus myth would have had to be created before 100.

Thanks for correcting me--I meant Pliny all along. Most scholars believe these references to be mostly, if not completely, authentic. It shows that a group of Christians existed by 106-111. I've yet to hear a good explanation as to who these Christians were if not traditional Christians. Especially because it coincides with traditional Christian tales that the term was applied before 60.