Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
On3Truly

Atheism and faith

6,799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jodie.Lynne
5 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

You're beating around the bush and did not answer my question. So I'll ask again:  If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

 

No, I would not. If Christianity were true, that would mean that the OT was also true. And if the god depicted in the OT is THE god, then he is an immoral son of a female dog who does not deserve worship.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm my opinion it's the only way of looking at it. His Country was in control of an invading force, the leadership of his people sought to keep their power by accepting Roman rule. He was standing against the injustice he witnessed in his land.

He was just like any other revolutionary, Washington, Collins, Tortsky, Meena, Petofi, Lord Byron, Marx, Ghandi and Broz Tito. Only difference is written history was basically non existent in those times and people made up a lot of stuff about him and fabled stories in his name which for some reason people accept as gospel.

That is one side of the story. Do you think this guy that some claim did all this was named Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Truthseeker007 said:

That is one side of the story. Do you think this guy that some claim did all this was named Jesus?

Yes, it's written independently by Roman historians that he had a following. It's written also in the holy Muslim texts, who incidentally describe Jesus as a man, not as God. Strip away the fantasy stories your left with a few independently written historical accounts that suggest Jesus had at least a sufficient following for it to be written about. His crucification is also written in passing, so with that taken into account, without looking at the Bible one would come to the conclusion that Jesus had a following and was probably killed for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yes, it's written independently by Roman historians that he had a following. It's written also in the holy Muslim texts, who incidentally describe Jesus as a man, not as God. Strip away the fantasy stories your left with a few independently written historical accounts that suggest Jesus had at least a sufficient following for it to be written about. His crucification is also written in passing, so with that taken into account, without looking at the Bible one would come to the conclusion that Jesus had a following and was probably killed for it.

Which Roman historians would that be? Muslim holy texts really can't be used as evidence. That is like using the Bible as evidence for Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, Truthseeker007 said:

So you think these stories about the Mesopotamian deities were just made up out of thin air? You don't think it is possible these stories were based on something that really happened?

Isn't it odd you discount Christian mythology but believe Sitchin's illiterate nonsense?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Jesus definitely existed, there are multiple independent historians that write about him. However all the miraculous stuff he was supposed to do is nonsense.

Alas, no. The earliest extant non-Christian mentions possible are Josephus (Antiquities 18 & 20). Even if all uncertainties about those mentions were resolved favorably to the HJ hypothesis, they would be firmly dated to the year 93 CE. That is "gospel era," but two generations after the alleged events of the canonical gospels.

It is not the passage of time that is the main problem (Josephus would be a younger contemporary of James the Just, and would certainly have known personally all of the Temple authorities mentioned in connection with the James trial). The problem is the rise of a public, visible Christian movement. Josephus gives evidence of that movement's notoriety, not evidence that what the movement claimed about its origins was true.

Josephus wrote his Wars in the 70's. There is no mention back then of Jesus or James, even though coverage of Pontius Pilate appears in both Wars and Antiqiuites.. What happened between the 70's and the 90's? Josephus' audience became interested in the increasingly newsworthy pork-eating Jewish sect that worshipped an executed felon.

That newsiness pretty much extinguishes "independence" among the early non-Christian historians. By about 20 years after Antiquities, Pliny writes about a plainly visible, if still secretive sect (finding one guy who was a member in the late 70's, noting him as exceptional). Within a few years, Tacitus is correcting the hoi polloi's mispronunciation of the sect's name. Suetonius has a casual mention of Nero-era legislation (but no Quo Vadis style persecution).

Further, I think Tacitus read Josephus, and both Pliny and Suetonius likely knew Tacitus personally. There is very little chance of independence among them, even apart from the common knowledge that there were people adhering to a Jesus myth, information available to anybody in the 90's and thereafter.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Isn't it odd you discount Christian mythology but believe Sitchin's illiterate nonsense?

I do think Christian Mythology was based on something factual. Just like I think the gods of the past were based on something that actually happened. The truth is we really will never know for sure what really happened in the past. All we can do is ponder and make our own opinions up about it. It is all very interesting to say the least. I think we all can agree though that Yahweh was a tyrant whether he existed or not. And how people can connect the story of Jesus with Yahweh is pretty laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Which Roman historians would that be? Muslim holy texts really can't be used as evidence. That is like using the Bible as evidence for Jesus.

Titus Flavius Josephus in the section commonly known as testimonium flavianum which documents Jesus as wise man who visited Greeks and Jews and had followers from each camp which led to his crucification.

Tacitus mentioned his execution, crucification by Pontius Pilate. He also mentions Christians specifically.

Suetonius mentions a disturbance in the Jewish community by Chrestus, some believe he misheard Christ but he could be actually referring to someone called Chrestus.

As with everything these are also disputed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Alas, no. The earliest extant non-Christian mentions possible are Josephus (Antiquities 18 & 20). Even if all uncertainties about those mentions were resolved favorably to the HJ hypothesis, they would be firmly dated to the year 93 CE. That is "gospel era," but two generations after the alleged events of the canonical gospels.

It is not the passage of time that is the main problem (Josephus would be a younger contemporary of James the Just, and would certainly have known personally all of the Temple authorities mentioned in connection with the James trial). The problem is the rise of a public, visible Christian movement. Josephus gives evidence of that movement's notoriety, not evidence that what the movement claimed about its origins was true.

Josephus wrote his Wars in the 70's. There is no mention back then of Jesus or James, even though coverage of Pontius Pilate appears in both Wars and Antiqiuites.. What happened between the 70's and the 90's? Josephus' audience became interested in the increasingly newsworthy pork-eating Jewish sect that worshipped an executed felon.

That newsiness pretty much extinguishes "independence" among the early non-Christian historians. By about 20 years after Antiquities, Pliny writes about a plainly visible, if still secretive sect (finding one guy who was a member in the late 70's, noting him as exceptional). Within a few years, Tacitus is correcting the hoi polloi's mispronunciation of the sect's name. Suetonius has a casual mention of Nero-era legislation (but no Quo Vadis style persecution).

Further, I think Tacitus read Josephus, and both Pliny and Suetonius likely knew Tacitus personally. There is very little chance of independence among them, even apart from the common knowledge that there were people adhering to a Jesus myth, information available to anybody in the 90's and thereafter.

Great points and also to further mention the account of Josephus was proven to be a fraud. It has been demonstrated over the centuries that Testamonium Flavium was a forgery manufactured by the Catholic Church, and was inserted into Josephus's works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
4 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

What is your evidence for that claim?

The truth of many things can be discerned by thought process. I.e. 'thinking'.

The 'evidence' is all around us...literally. We know what causes thunder...it isn't the voice of God. 

We know what volcanoes are all about, we know why droughts  happen, we know all about plagues and how to stop them and avoid them...none of which are caused by God.

We have a deep and excellent understanding of the mechanics of our universe.  These are all things that ancient humans could not possibly have known. Plus, there  is a plethora  of anthropological evidence. 

We have been conditioned however over 10s of thousands of years that God is the cause of everything. 

Knowledge...modern knowledge at the finger tips of the masses is a relatively new thing. It is hard for many to grasp the real truth because they sre afraid to break their conditioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Great points and also to further mention the account of Josephus was proven to be a fraud. It has been demonstrated over the centuries that Testamonium Flavium was a forgery manufactured by the Catholic Church, and was inserted into Josephus's works.

Can you post a link that suggest the account of Josephus was a fraud please?

 

18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Alas, no. The earliest extant non-Christian mentions possible are Josephus (Antiquities 18 & 20). Even if all uncertainties about those mentions were resolved favorably to the HJ hypothesis, they would be firmly dated to the year 93 CE. That is "gospel era," but two generations after the alleged events of the canonical gospels.

It is not the passage of time that is the main problem (Josephus would be a younger contemporary of James the Just, and would certainly have known personally all of the Temple authorities mentioned in connection with the James trial). The problem is the rise of a public, visible Christian movement. Josephus gives evidence of that movement's notoriety, not evidence that what the movement claimed about its origins was true.

Josephus wrote his Wars in the 70's. There is no mention back then of Jesus or James, even though coverage of Pontius Pilate appears in both Wars and Antiqiuites.. What happened between the 70's and the 90's? Josephus' audience became interested in the increasingly newsworthy pork-eating Jewish sect that worshipped an executed felon.

That newsiness pretty much extinguishes "independence" among the early non-Christian historians. By about 20 years after Antiquities, Pliny writes about a plainly visible, if still secretive sect (finding one guy who was a member in the late 70's, noting him as exceptional). Within a few years, Tacitus is correcting the hoi polloi's mispronunciation of the sect's name. Suetonius has a casual mention of Nero-era legislation (but no Quo Vadis style persecution).

Further, I think Tacitus read Josephus, and both Pliny and Suetonius likely knew Tacitus personally. There is very little chance of independence among them, even apart from the common knowledge that there were people adhering to a Jesus myth, information available to anybody in the 90's and thereafter.

That's interesting. One thing I find odd is that two of the historical accounts states Chrestus as the origin of Christianity they don't mention the name Jesus. Anyways it does appear someone named Jesus was executed by Pilate for either being apart of the Christianity movement or for starting the movement, this view is based on historical accounts not Biblical ones.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Titus Flavius Josephus in the section commonly known as testimonium flavianum which documents Jesus as wise man who visited Greeks and Jews and had followers from each camp which led to his crucification.

Forgery manufactured by the Catholic Church.

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Tacitus mentioned his execution, crucification by Pontius Pilate. He also mentions Christians specifically.

See: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

 

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Suetonius mentions a disturbance in the Jewish community by Chrestus, some believe he misheard Christ but he could be actually referring to someone called Chrestus.

As with everything these are also disputed

Chresto or Chrestus is not Christo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Forgery manufactured by the Catholic Church.

See: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

 

Chresto or Chrestus is not Christo.

That website is extremely bias any better links from real historians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Can you post a link that suggest the account of Josephus was a fraud please?

 

I think this link does a great job to lead you in the right direction to do you some research on the matter:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That website is extremely bias any better links from real historians.

Well I don't know what to tell you. Just believe what you feel is right for you. It really don't matter anyway although I find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Well I don't know what to tell you. Just believe what you feel is right for you. It really don't matter anyway although I find it interesting.

I'm not religious, obviously. But the existence of Jesus is an interesting subject I have been reading up on for a while now. There seems to be a lot of missinformation and biases on both sides of the debate.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm not religious, obviously. But the existence of Jesus is an interesting subject I have been reading up on for a while now. There seems to be a lot of missinformation and biases on both sides of the debate.

Yes I think the best we can do is research it and form our own opinions. I do have link here you might find interesting. It is from channeled material so it can't be used for proof or evidence but it may give you some new areas to explore. It is a little something that opened my mind up back in the day when I still considered myself a Christian and believed in Jesus..

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/jesusmyth.htm

Small excerpt:

This Awareness indicates that even the New Testament is assembled from patterns related to stories taken from earlier sources, such as Zoroastrian, Mithrain, Krishna, Buddhism, and Egyptian, and others, in which many verses are literally paraphrasing earlier writings, and many of the stories attributed to the story of Jesus, were lifted directly out of these other writings. The story of Jesus at the well, as one which was taken from earlier writings. This Awareness indicates that it is of importance that entities realize the origins of the Bible did not come from the pen of God, but came from the earlier writings in different cultures and nations at the time these Hebrew priests put this work together. This Awareness indicates that these countries who were plagiarized then became labeled as heathen, - nations whose philosophies were heathenistic, but this was only after their stories had been stolen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
21 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's interesting. One thing I find odd is that two of the historical accounts states Chrestus as the origin of Christianity they don't mention the name Jesus. Anyways it does appear someone named Jesus was executed by Pilate for either being apart of the Christianity movement or for starting the movement, this view is based on historical accounts not Biblical ones.

There's a multiple confusion in the record. Chrestus was a fine name in its own right, something like "Goodman" in English. Also, it does appear that there were at least two active groups with a "Christ" in the first centuries of the Common Era, Team Jesus and followers of Simon of Samaria.

Jews and other groups were expelled from Rome now and then. The Claudian expulsion, which Suetonius blames on Chrestus as instigator (at least suggesting an actual man physically present in Rome at the time) may well have been just what Suetonius said: a breach of the peace among the Jewish residents (that is, nothing at all to do with any Christian movement). We do know that it didn't take much to attract whole-group punishment. According to Josephus (adjacent to the notorious testimonium), Tiberius expelled the Jews and conscripted 4000 of them for dangerous duty because a few Jewish con men cheated a Roman lady of some valuables.

Tacitus is on the hook for the etymology of the word Christian being a story about an execution carried out under Pilate, and thus that the correct term is Christian, not Chrestian. IMO, his sources for the story included Josephus. I do not believe that Tacitus is personally on the hook for the historical truth of the story behind the etymology.

As to the testimonium, it is simply absurd that the received version is original with Josephus. It is not even a forgery, that is, not something intended to deceive, but rather a monkish fantasy about what an observant Jew could be made to confess about Jesus if only hammers and tongs were applied to the case. The question that remains, and which cannot be resolved with available evidence, is whether there was anything there about Jesus in the first place, now rewritten, or whether what we read is a complete fabrication.

Either way, we cannot say we have evidence from Josephus about Jesus. What we have is the artless not-even-forgery. Any reconstruction of what Josephus "may have written," is the testimony of the reconstructor, not the testimony of Josephus.

I favor that Josephus did write in the 90's about the Christian movement. One example of a non-ideological discussion of the problem is at

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/josephus-and-jesus-iii-estimating-a-plausible-testimony/

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
35 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Yes I think the best we can do is research it and form our own opinions. I do have link here you might find interesting. It is from channeled material so it can't be used for proof or evidence but it may give you some new areas to explore. It is a little something that opened my mind up back in the day when I still considered myself a Christian and believed in Jesus..

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/jesusmyth.htm

Small excerpt:

This Awareness indicates that even the New Testament is assembled from patterns related to stories taken from earlier sources, such as Zoroastrian, Mithrain, Krishna, Buddhism, and Egyptian, and others, in which many verses are literally paraphrasing earlier writings, and many of the stories attributed to the story of Jesus, were lifted directly out of these other writings. The story of Jesus at the well, as one which was taken from earlier writings. This Awareness indicates that it is of importance that entities realize the origins of the Bible did not come from the pen of God, but came from the earlier writings in different cultures and nations at the time these Hebrew priests put this work together. This Awareness indicates that these countries who were plagiarized then became labeled as heathen, - nations whose philosophies were heathenistic, but this was only after their stories had been stolen.

 

I'm highly skeptical about writings that states as fact the Jesus travelled to India or anywhere else for that matter.

However I believe that historical accounts do depict a person named Jesus. Regardless if you dismiss the contentious mentioning of Jesus by Josephus, the other one that not contentious states "James, brother of Jesus the so called Christ". There was an ossuary found with a similar inscription. Pliny, Tacitus, Lucian and  Celsus also mentioned him. Early Jewish texts describe Jesus as an illegitimate son of Mary and acuse her if being a witch and him a sorcerer.

I'm of the opinion, I'm not an historian so my opinion means little, there are abundant historical references that leaves little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.

One interesting issue I have noticed during my research is that no Roman,Greek or Pagan historians or philosophers dispute that Jesus existed. If you were to compare the myth of King Arthur and Jesus for example, no historical accounts of King Arthur emerge until around 800ad, which is 300 years after he was supposed to be alive. Maybe it's an incorrect comparison, but the fact that a King has no mention in any historical texts until hundreds of years after his existence, and an upstart from Jerusalem has multiple references afew years after his supposed death speaks volumes I think.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
40 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm highly skeptical about writings that states as fact the Jesus travelled to India or anywhere else for that matter.

However I believe that historical accounts do depict a person named Jesus. Regardless if you dismiss the contentious mentioning of Jesus by Josephus, the other one that not contentious states "James, brother of Jesus the so called Christ". There was an ossuary found with a similar inscription. Pliny, Tacitus, Lucian and  Celsus also mentioned him. Early Jewish texts describe Jesus as an illegitimate son of Mary and acuse her if being a witch and him a sorcerer.

I'm of the opinion, I'm not an historian so my opinion means little, there are abundant historical references that leaves little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.

One interesting issue I have noticed during my research is that no Roman,Greek or Pagan historians or philosophers dispute that Jesus existed. If you were to compare the myth of King Arthur and Jesus for example, no historical accounts of King Arthur emerge until around 800ad, which is 300 years after he was supposed to be alive. Maybe it's an incorrect comparison, but the fact that a King has no mention in any historical texts until hundreds of years after his existence, and an upstart from Jerusalem has multiple references afew years after his supposed death speaks volumes I think.

 All I can say on that is the Catholic Church had a lot of power,wealth and they could pretty much make a fictional hero real. Wouldn't you just love to find out what is deep inside the Vatican Secret Archives?

"How well we know what a profitable superstition 
this fable of Christ has been for us"
Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

Edited by Truthseeker007
Add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
40 minutes ago, danydandan said:

One interesting issue I have noticed during my research is that no Roman,Greek or Pagan historians or philosophers dispute that Jesus existed.

That's simply not true. The early church fathers understood the Simonians to teach that their Simon had done the things attributed to Jesus, That is, "Jesus" was a character played by Simon.

There is also a problem of interpretation. Apologists are quick to see "Jesus" in references to "Christ" that assent to historicity, but slow to interpret the same word as a reference to Jesus when Jews remarked that "Christ" is yet to come.

Another problem is that ancient counteraplogists may have been better writers and debaters than modern apologists. Celsus says in as many words that he is arguing from the Christian scriptures, and needs nothing else. He's the earliest counteraplogist whose work survives in any length - God alone knows what arguments others made before him. Reputedly the best of the ancient counterapologists, Porphyry, is also entirely lost as far as Christian criticism is concerned. Again, God alone knows what he argued.

Then there are formal considerations. After Celsus, what counterapologist could say of his or her personal knowledge whether Jesus existed or not? "I don't think Jesus existed" is the fallacy of argument from incredulity - not something an ancient rhetorical professional would commit. So, there would have to be something else, perhaps something insinuating?

The Emperor Julian, from whom much is lost, but some has survived, made a crack at the expense of the Alexandrian Christian community. In contrast to the sun, Julian mentioned Jesus, whom neither you nor your fathers have seen.

What did he mean by that? That hopes for Jesus' return are taking more than one generation? That the whole religion is so new that there are only a few generations to mention? That Julian personally doubts there ever was a Jesus?

We don't know, and Julian is good enough at writing that he might have meant all those things in just a few very sharply aimed words.

Of all the bullshy arguments for Jesus' historicity (and not all are bullshy, but this one is) "no ancient writer questionned Jesus' existence" is simply the worst.

Just to tidy the rest up. Authentication of the alleged mention of James rests squarely on the testimony of Origen (agreed to by Eusebius, but derivative of Origen) who

- does not claim to quote Josephus
- introduces a phrase found repeatedly in Matthew
- which Origen attributes to Josephus in a commentary on Matthew
- most problematically: Origen's lengthy description of what he remembers that Josephus wrote about James is simply not there - not even Eusebius could find it.

(As you might imagine, the previous link to a blog was part of a series on Josephus; Origen's misrecollection is the subject of parts 4 and 5 of that series.)

As to the ossuary, it is a fine example of 20th Century Israeli craftwork. It is amazing what those garage workshops can turn out for the credulous with money.

Lucian and Celsus? Aren't we getting a little late? And independent? As mentioned earlier in the post, Celsus says in as many words that he is relying entirely on the Christian scriptures. Lucian, as part of his satire, depicts a guy making up Christian scripture!

There is no reason to think that any of the Talmudic material is independent of its Christian opposition. Both sides made up things about the other side (e.g., Christians told how top Jews were misleading the rank and file, because the top Jews knew that Jesus was their Savior, but wouldn't admit it - unless suitably persuaded, of course).

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
21 hours ago, Guyver said:

That.....and......how is the mind capable of producing supernatural experiences?  If there is no actual God, and God only exists as a function of our own minds, then we are God and we don't even know it.  If there is no God, then I have done miracles.  

A "miracle" cannot happen.  But consider the implications if it does.  The next problem, of course, is to prove that it is a miracle - sort of like proving a negative.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
2 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

No, I would not. If Christianity were true, that would mean that the OT was also true. And if the god depicted in the OT is THE god, then he is an immoral son of a female dog who does not deserve worship.

The fact is that the Christian god has a very funny definition of the word "perfect". It's one of the mainstays of Christianity - a perfect, infinite god. But you cannot be perfect if you "want", as "want" denotes you're lacking in something. So the idea that God is both perfect and wants things from humans (whatever those things are) is bizarre in the extreme.

Couple this with the fact that God is both infinite and everywhere, but cares about thing like you mixing your cloth fibers together, makes the whole thing pretty impossible to buy into. 

And this is what I mean - what am I buying into by saying "Christianity is true"?

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
42 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That's simply not true. The early church fathers understood the Simonians to teach that their Simon had done the things attributed to Jesus, That is, "Jesus" was a character played by Simon.

There is also a problem of interpretation. Apologists are quick to see "Jesus" in references to "Christ" that assent to historicity, but slow to interpret the same word as a reference to Jesus when Jews remarked that "Christ" is yet to come.

Another problem is that ancient counteraplogists may have been better writers and debaters than modern apologists. Celsus says in as many words that he is arguing from the Christian scriptures, and needs nothing else. He's the earliest counteraplogist whose work survives in any length - God alone knows what arguments others made before him. Reputedly the best of the ancient counterapologists, Porphyry, is also entirely lost as far as Christian criticism is concerned. Again, God alone knows what he argued.

Then there are formal considerations. After Celsus, what counterapologist could say of his or her personal knowledge whether Jesus existed or not? "I don't think Jesus existed" is the fallacy of argument from incredulity - not something an ancient rhetorical professional would commit. So, there would have to be something else, perhaps something insinuating?

The Emperor Julian, from whom much is lost, but some has survived, made a crack at the expense of the Alexandrian Christian community. In contrast to the sun, Julian mentioned Jesus, whom neither you nor your fathers have seen.

What did he mean by that? That hopes for Jesus' return are taking more than one generation? That the whole religion is so new that there are only a few generations to mention? That Julian personally doubts there ever was a Jesus?

We don't know, and Julian is good enough at writing that he might have meant all those things in just a few very sharply aimed words.

Of all the bullshy arguments for Jesus' historicity (and not all are bullshy, but this one is) "no ancient writer questionned Jesus' existence" is simply the worst.

Just to tidy the rest up. Authentication of the alleged mention of James rests squarely on the testimony of Origen (agreed to by Eusebius, but derivative of Origen) who

- does not claim to quote Josephus
- introduces a phrase found repeatedly in Matthew
- which Origen attributes to Josephus in a commentary on Matthew
- most problematically: Origen's lengthy description of what he remembers that Josephus wrote about James is simply not there - not even Eusebius could find it.

(As you might imagine, the previous link to a blog was part of a series on Josephus; Origen's misrecollection is the subject of parts 4 and 5 of that series.)

As to the ossuary, it is a fine example of 20th Century Israeli craftwork. It is amazing what those garage workshops can turn out for the credulous with money.

Lucian and Celsus? Aren't we getting a little late? And independent? As mentioned earlier in the post, Celsus says in as many words that he is relying entirely on the Christian scriptures. Lucian, as part of his satire, depicts a guy making up Christian scripture!

There is no reason to think that any of the Talmudic material is independent of its Christian opposition. Both sides made up things about the other side (e.g., Christians told how top Jews were misleading the rank and file, because the top Jews knew that Jesus was their Savior, but wouldn't admit it - unless suitably persuaded, of course).

So what we are saying is only one Roman, Greek or Jewish historian, Josephus, mentioned Jesus in passing and those accounts are disputed. So realistically there is zero tangible evidence of Jesus.

Wasn't that ossuary carbon dated? Or are you suggesting it's a fraud.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So what we are saying is only one Roman, Greek or Jewish historian, Josephus, mentioned Jesus in passing and those accounts are disputed. So realistically there is zero tangible evidence of Jesus.

Wasn't that ossuary carbon dated? Or are you suggesting it's a fraud.

A good question is why are there zero eyewitness accounts? All accounts if any are after the time he was said to have lived. Here is something to further add into the mix that is very interesting.

The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables. Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city," that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most churches accept the new dating system. The A.D. system simply reset the time of January 1, 754 A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., which Dionysius obliquely derived from the belief of the date of "incarnation" of Jesus. The date, if one uses the Bible as history, can't possibly hold true. *

Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They correspond to the same dates as B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or death of an alleged Christ.

* Dionysius believed that the conception (incarnation) of Jesus occurred on March 25. This meant that the conception must have occurred nine months later on December 25, probably not coincidentally, the very same date that the Emperor Aurelian, in 274 C.E., declared December 25 a holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336 C.E., Christians replaced Mithras with Jesus' birth on the same date. Dionysius then declared the new year several days later on January 1, probably to coincide with the traditional Roman year starting on January 1st. Dionysius probably never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus because the Matthew gospel says his birth occurred while Herod served as King. That meant that if he did exist, his birth would have to occur in 4 B.C.E. or earlier. He made another 'mistake' by assigning the first year as 1 instead of 0 (everyone's birthday starts at year 0, not 1). The concept of zero (invented from Arabia and India) didn't come into Europe until about two hundred years later.

https://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.