Kapyong

Gday,

Or rather - MINE, like I said. I wrote it as Iasion, I post now as Kapyong.

What a pity you didn't bother to check the facts before arrogantly rejecting my claim of authorship and falsely accusing my of being a liar and a plagiarist. You actually went searching for the list, but FAILED to research the authorship. You failed dismally there, Roger.

I await your apology.



No it doesn't.
But hey - you can't be bothered to make an argument - you just post here to disagree and abuse.


Like I said.
But what IS extant is a review of his work which shows he did NOT mention Jesus - like I said.


"MUST" ? In capitals?
What a pity you have such comprehension difficulties with big words like "could" and "should" and "must".

I said Justus "probably should have" mentioned Jesus.
Not "MUST".
Why can't you be honest, Roger?

I told you WHY - because he wrote a history of Jewish leaders of that time and that region. But of course you dishonestly ignore that and lie that we were "not told".


Oh dear - reading comprehension failed again hey Roger?
I said "could have".
Not "would".
If only you were an honest debater who answered what I write.



Exactly what ad hominem attack do you "imagine" here, Roger ?

Is it like how you falsely imagined I was a liar and plagiarist?
Is it like how you falsely imagined I said Justus "MUST" have mentioned Jesus?

Your posts are full of abuse and imagination and falsehoods.
What a pity you can't handle the truth.



Kapyong
(was Iasion)

Steven Carr

We do have a lot of explanation as why sensible people do not expect contemporary evidence for Jesus.

Good job Jesus definitely existed, or else people would have to produce evidence for him.

Steven Carr

Paul continues to be silent, in so much as people cannot hear him.

A real historical founder would inevitably have had miracle stories attached to his name, but it seems Jews had no idea of any miracle working Jesus.

Indeed, it seems that people who rejected Christianity weren't rejecting the historical Jesus. It wasn't that a historical Jesus was being preached who did not match their expectations.

Juststeve

Steven:

Why do you think a real historical founder would have had miracle stories attached to his name, particularly if Paul was writing as early as most peer review scholars thought he was writing? Isn't it more likely that the historical Jesus performed no miracles, that the miracles are legendary material that grew up as time passed?

Steve

mountainman

Blind Faith were a good band.

In books like "Ante Pacem" by Graydon Snyder, and the "Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia" by Elsa Gibson. Not to mention of course the monumental works of past "scholars" such as the "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae" by Giovanni de Rossi and Pope Pius IX.

But I have often wondered what was the purpose of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

aa5874

If Jesus did NOTHING and was NOTHING as described he was most likely NOTHING.

The argument for "historical Jesus" inherently assumes that the NT is a source of Fiction.

One cannot PRESUME that they KNOW there was an HJ when they have DISCREDITED their source for HJ as fiction.

Now, there was NO cult leader called Jesus Christ in the NT when he was ALIVE.

Jesus was NOT known as CHRIST so he could NOT have started a cult called Christians.

How many times are we going to go over this fundamental part of the Jesus story in the NT.

Again, for the UMPTEENTH time, Jesus DEMANDED that the disciples TELL NO MAN he was CHRIST.

Mt 16:20 - The Christian religion STARTED when Jesus was ALREADY ascended through the clouds and were FIRST called Christians in Antioch.

You cannot PRESENT the NT as EVIDENCE and make FALSE claims about the Jesus character.

Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews, was KILLED, he resurrected and Ascended to heaven and then he sent the Holy Ghost to his disciples on the day of Pentecost and it was then the Christian religion was STARTED in the NT.

It was the DISCIPLES that called Jesus the CHRIST AFTER he had ASCENDED and were then LATER called CHRISTIANS in Antioch in Acts of the Apostles.

Ac 11:26 - And even HJers are claiming that HJ was NOT CHRIST so he was NOT any cult leader of Christians.

CHRIST was NOT the name of Jesus when he was ALIVE in the NT.

It was AFTER Jesus ASCENDED and SENT the Holy Ghost that the Disciples started to tell people that Jesus was Christ.

It was the DISCIPLES who were the cult leaders in the NT AFTER they RECIEVED the POWER of the Holy GHOST.

Steven Carr

You are right.

There is no reason to think a real historical founder would have had miracle stories attached to his name. Therefore, Jesus did not exist, as we know that miracle stories were attached to his name.

Oh you mean, Paul was writing too early for legends to grow up about Jesus.

Apart from Paul declaring Jesus to have been the agent through whom God had created the world, and to have accompanied the Jews in the Exodus...

Still, if the historicist case is that a new religious movement virtually deifies its founder within 10 years of his death, and that 20 years after his death, no stories of his amazing powers had surfaced, we know that the historicist case has departed from the real world.

davidstarlingm

You are correct in noting that this statistical approach does not identify the century of authorship. However, this is not its intended purpose. This approach serves to quantify what would otherwise be a purely subjective argument.

Arguments from silence are not automatically fallacious, but they are extremely limited in terms of usability. The common adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is demonstrably false; the absence of dangerously high radioactivity levels in my body, for example, is extremely good evidence that I have no highly radioactive elements in me. However, it is not necessarily evidence that I have no transuranium elements in me; some isotopes of transuranium elements, like neptunium-237, have long half-lives and emit (comparatively) far less radiation in sufficiently small doses.

Arguments from silence only work if it can be demonstrated that the silence is unexpected. Because of this, the null hypothesis (that there is nothing unexpected about the silence in the first century) is not evidence that the events in the New Testament actually happened as described. There could be alternate explanations; perhaps, as you suggested, the New Testament was actually written in the second century.

Roger Pearse

What a curious comment! But ... if you feel such pain at any hint of being accused of plagiarism -- rather an overreaction to my comments -- then the solution is in your hands. Just don't post the same material under multiple pseudonyms. Not complicated, is it?

If you do post material by yourself, as if it was by others, you will get -- and deserve -- the punishment notoriously meted out to those who listen at keyholes; namely unflattering comments about yourself! Again, I wonder what you expect?

The peril of selective quotation is to be accused of misrepresentation. You decided to quote half a sentence, and that not from the only English translation of the work.

The remainder of your comments made me feel rather sorry for you. They are, I suppose, illustrative of the perils of being a hate-poster, whoever the object of animosity must be. We must all try to dwell on our enthusiasms, I think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iskander

I admire you.